found the worst vulnerability ever) which made them do such a thing.

take down or death) or to TrueCrypt itself (i.e. Why I think so: strange key change, why bitlocker?Īssumption #2 Something bad happened to TrueCrypt developers (i.e. On the SourceForge, the keys were changed before any TrueCrypt files uploaded, but now they are deleted and the old keys got reverted back. All old versions are wiped, the repository is wiped too.Īssumption #1 The website is presumed hacked, the keys are presumed compromised. The binary is signed with the valid (usual) key. The binary on the website is capable only to decode encrypted data, not encode, and may contain trojan (seems like it doesn't, but don't believe me). Quoting TrueCrypt Developer David: “There is no longer interest.”

TrueCrypt Developer “David”: Said “Bitlocker is ‘good enough’ and Windows was original ‘goal of the project.’ ” Steven Barnhart: “Also said no government contact except one time inquiring about a ‘support contract.’ ” Steven Barnhart: “I asked and it was clear from the reply that 'he' believes forking's harmful because only they are really familiar w/code.” Steven Barnhart: (Paraphrasing) Developer “personally” feels that fork is harmful: “The source is still available as a reference though.”

We worked hard on this for 10 years, nothing lasts forever.” Steven Barnhart wrote to an eMail address he had used before and received several replies from “David.” The following snippets were taken from a twitter conversation which then took place between Steven Barnhart and Matthew Green Developer “David”: “We were happy with the audit, it didn't spark anything.

Truecrypt 7.2 download