Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 31st May 2014 00:12 UTC, submitted by teo
Privacy, Security, Encryption

Over the past 24 hours the website for TrueCrypt (a very widely used encryption solution) was updated with a rather unusually styled message stating that TrueCrypt is "considered harmful" and should not be used.

Very odd story. Lots of little red flags going up all over the place.

Thread beginning with comment 589824
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Too bad...
by Morgan on Sat 31st May 2014 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too bad..."
Member since:

I don't disagree with you, I'm sure it's very tit-for-tat. These days, that kind of collusion is inescapable though. Would Apple's FileVault be any more secure than BitLocker? Was TrueCrypt even really secure? I'm beginning to wonder if the only truly secure data storage is in our heads; if we don't ever put pen to paper, voice to microphone, or fingers to keyboard, maybe it will stay secure then. Maybe...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Too bad...
by ilovebeer on Sat 31st May 2014 04:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Too bad..."
ilovebeer Member since:

I saw a show related to this not long ago that demonstrated present-day capability to display images a test subject was picturing in their mind. The images weren't exactly HD quality, but basic shapes were reliable. The research was explained as a means to give blind people sight by using visual sensors and encoding the images directly to the brain. Not only that but also the ability for people `see` things outside of the normal human-viewable spectrum. And this wasn't blowing the lid off anything secret!

So "they" are developing technology to read/view your thoughts, and literally see things a normal person can't. Think of how that might work in a military application, spy, espionage, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Too bad...
by WereCatf on Sat 31st May 2014 07:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Too bad..."
WereCatf Member since:

Was TrueCrypt even really secure?

Well, the first part of the audit didn't find any security holes, the second part of the audit that focuses on the algorithms, random-number generators and such is still a go. It could be that there is some hole there, real crypto is really f--king hard to do right, but so far it does seem secure enough.

I'm glad that someone else took over the project and moved it to Switzerland, though I hope the guys who did that know enough about crypto not to introduce any new holes.

Edited 2014-05-31 07:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6