<story><title>True Goodbye: ‘Using TrueCrypt Is Not Secure’</title><url>http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/true-goodbye-using-truecrypt-is-not-secure/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>abcd_f</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s LavaBit 2.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been a long time TC user and if there&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;the&lt;/i&gt; trait it has it&amp;#x27;s the quality and a high degree of polish. And now looking at the diff and the screenshot of that in-app &amp;quot;Not secure&amp;quot; message, the polish is just not there. It feels like it was something that was slapped together in a rush &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; by someone who&amp;#x27;s not an original developer. The SF page alone is a big red flag. If you compare its nearly hysterical tone and ridiculous BitLocker advice to the tone and content of the actual app, they don&amp;#x27;t add up &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;This leaves us with a handful of discrepancies between the last good state of the project and what&amp;#x27;s out there now. So it&amp;#x27;s either someone else&amp;#x27;s hackjob or it is original and the discrepancies are intentional. Then, factor in the .exe sig match, and it pretty much leaves only the latter option - the original devs made an absurdly non-TC-like release. The question is &amp;quot;why?&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dendory</author><text>The whole message on the site makes no sense  and I think that&amp;#x27;s on purpose. What likely happened is the US gov found the TC authors, then used their weight to try and get them to back door the binaries. Authors didn&amp;#x27;t want to, but couldn&amp;#x27;t publicize the letters without going to jail, so they made up the most ridiculous story for why they were giving up on the project, the best possible outcome so that they wouldn&amp;#x27;t go to jail and wouldn&amp;#x27;t subject users to the required back door.</text></comment>
<story><title>True Goodbye: ‘Using TrueCrypt Is Not Secure’</title><url>http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/true-goodbye-using-truecrypt-is-not-secure/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>abcd_f</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s LavaBit 2.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been a long time TC user and if there&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;the&lt;/i&gt; trait it has it&amp;#x27;s the quality and a high degree of polish. And now looking at the diff and the screenshot of that in-app &amp;quot;Not secure&amp;quot; message, the polish is just not there. It feels like it was something that was slapped together in a rush &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; by someone who&amp;#x27;s not an original developer. The SF page alone is a big red flag. If you compare its nearly hysterical tone and ridiculous BitLocker advice to the tone and content of the actual app, they don&amp;#x27;t add up &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;This leaves us with a handful of discrepancies between the last good state of the project and what&amp;#x27;s out there now. So it&amp;#x27;s either someone else&amp;#x27;s hackjob or it is original and the discrepancies are intentional. Then, factor in the .exe sig match, and it pretty much leaves only the latter option - the original devs made an absurdly non-TC-like release. The question is &amp;quot;why?&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>higherpurpose</author><text>If TruCrypt got taken over, it should tell us something that they recommended Bitlocker (about Bitlocker).</text></comment>