Talk:TrueCrypt

Is TrueCrypt really Open Source, or just "source-available"?

I want to bring this up because it's not exactly a small thing, even though to those outside the tech community it may seem that way. And it affects how we describe the subject of this article in the very first line.

I realize it is common to refer to the software as "open source", but this is generally out of media ignorance. In the tech community (where the term originated and where it is still most often used), that term has a very specific meaning that implies multiple things, the first of which being free license.

There is debate over whether TrueCrypt (with its TrueCrypt License 3.0) meets those major freedoms that designate it to be open source and free software.

The recent change to the introduction seems to be quite hasty, and if I may say so, pretty sloppy. Before the change, the heading called TC "source available" and linked to the licensing section where it was explained that the "openness" of the software was in question by the tech/open source community.

Now not only has that entire section been all but completely deleted, the intro paragraph has been changed to say "open source", and from the looks of it, the citations included weren't even vetted by the user that made the change. For example, the first citation doesn't even mention the words "open source" (outside of the comments section where an anonymous commenter lists it as an attribute of the program. I sure hope the user who made this change doesn't think a comment on a webpage meets WP:RS.) What's even more ironic is the second cited source actually claims TC isn't open source. The sub-header of the article literally says "its claim to be open source doesn't hold water, either."

If I wasn't supposed to assume good faith I would think this was a joke.

Given that the other two sources cited mention nothing about the licensing issues that bring the open source status of TC into question, one can only assume they are used as citations for no other reason than because they simply call TC an "open source" program. Again, this is just media ignorance. (And again, the user who made this change should be aware of that because not only did he delete the relevant information that explained this issue in the Wikipedia article, one of the very sources he cited goes into great detail and actually concludes that TC is not really considered open source.)

I invite discussion on this, but given the fact that the only citation provided which actually talks about the open source status ultimately concludes the software is in fact not open source, I'm going to revert the change and put back the relevant info in the license section until we can decide how we want to address the debate in the article (because I would think we can all agree it is something that is worthy of mention in the article, and as I said, for some reason it was deleted.) --Wikisian (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The license is non-free.[1] --Evice (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FreeOTFE

I've added a link in see-also to FreeOTFE, but it was undid with comment don't want to call out any specific alternative unless it is particularly significant, instead the comparison of alternatives is linked - but this software is significant because it's features are identical to TrueCrypt's it also has a quite similar GUI. And there is also no other non-closed-source on-the-fly volume encryption software for Windows. It's now abandoned but as I know there wasn't any security issues with it. Maybe it's fault of small user base but still it is significant name to mention along TrueCrypt. I think it went dead because at the time TC was direct and promising competitor. Doesn't that spell significant ? pwjb (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"I think it went dead because at the time TC was direct and promising competitor. Doesn't that spell significant ?" You pretty much just admitted it's not in the previous sentence when you described it as 'dead'. It might be, in future, but that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL matter. Content in articles still need to meet some degree of notability. If no-one has even heard about it (ideally major media), it just shouldn't be there.

Quote: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." -Rushyo ^Talk 15:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FreeOTFE has been relaunched as 'DoxBox' (https://t-d-k.github.io/doxbox/). You could try adding a link to this instead - but I don't know if it is 'significant'. I would do it myself, but I am the maintainer of DoxBox so could be seen as having a vested interest. Squte (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site

There is a hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site that says, approximately, "Don't use TrueCrypt because it is under the control of the NSA". Details about the message are on my user page at MediaWiki.org. Badon (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been told that no one has published this information, so I wrote an article and posted it on Reddit, here: Hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site : conspiracy. Badon (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just WP:OR --Claw of Slime (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well others spotted it weeks ago. Here's a couple guys noting it on 30 May [2] [3], [4] and these guys on 31 May [5], [6]. Just Google "uti nsa im cu si" there are lots of hits. I can't find any reliable sources noting it though.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning in the article somewhere. Badon (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are necessary to mention it in article. --Claw of Slime (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Badon, would you please tell us how you came to discover this code? People normally don't look for codes after all and not all of those who do know any Latin. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It turns out I wasn't the only one looking for hidden messages in the TrueCrypt page. You can see in Re: Hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site, reply #5 that "eyemiru" was messing around with the same text to find something hidden, beginning on 2014 May 29, and he came up with the same thing I published by the next day, on 2014 May 30. Of course, his IRC chat didn't achieve the high profile that my article did. I've mentioned him though, so he's not being overlooked. Badon (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It made it to BoingBoing's front page today, thats just as reliable as many of the other sources we have for this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just been quoted by several prominent news sources:

• Possible hidden Latin warning about NSA in Truecrypt's suicide note - Boing Boing
• TrueCrypt probably didn't leave a Latin message alerting users to NSA spying | Technology | theguardian.com
• Did TrueCrypt's developers hide a Latin message to us all?
• Twitter / Search - #truecrypt
• TrueCrypt probably didn’t depart a Latin message alerting users to NSA spying | Today News

I think it's notable now. Badon (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers' first priority is to make money and attracting readers; factual accuracy is not always their priority. They are just quoting you (sometimes ad hoc) without editorial oversight. (I asked you how you discovered it and you eluded answering; believing that they have contacted you for verification and oversight is too far-fetched.) Google Translate gives exactly the same thing but because it is based on user input. (I tried alternative input and didn't get enough satisfactory results.) How you changed "if I wish to use NSA" into "it is under NSA control" is an entirely different question. And now, all of the sudden, you are claiming that it is notable too?

Sorry, I think it is too biased. I'd wait until I get a less tabloid-like coverage. Fleet Command (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to be hostile. It's a controversial topic that has become notable, if only because it's controversial. Fixating on me personally is bizarre and has nothing to do with whether it's notable or not. Whether I answer your questions to your satisfaction or not is also irrelevant. The article should present the facts as they are, and it's up to you to decide what that should look like. I have abstained from editing the article on this subject. If you read some of those sources I provided, you'll see that most of them are skeptical, and a few completely disagree with the article I wrote. I respectfully suggest you shift your focus away from me, and on to more important things. Badon (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound hostile. Sorry. But in-depth scrutiny can be scathing if you deeply believe in the opposite of the results. Fleet Command (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

TrueCrypt - dead or alive?

There seems to be some POV-switching going on recently. Not being a TrueCrypt user, I'm not sure which is correct.

It seems that:

• TrueCrypt for Windows is end-of-lifed.
• Linux versions are rather independent of this.

Now it's not clear to me what's going on, but either TrueCrypt (overall, as is the scope of this article) is end-of-lifed and the article should reflect that from the lead onward or else the Windows end-of-life is just one part of this and if the Linux version continues, then the article should not be taking such a simple "the product is now EOLed" approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Although TrueCrypt can still be found in secondary outlets (including Linux repositories) it is no longer available from its primary outlet. Not only it is discontinued, it is slain. You hear a lot that news outlet say "Company X killed product Y" while all that "X" did was to stop providing support. Well, in case of TrueCrypt, the developers (apparently) released a TrueCrypt 7.2 that does not encrypt anything. FileHippo initially hosted that version but now has removed it, after it received a petition to do so. Its derivatives (Linux or otherwise) are unaffected.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just speculation, but it would seem like the developer(s) simply didn't feel like maintaining the project anymore, and so terminated support and provided a tutorial for migrating encrypted file to more up-to-date software, since TrueCrypt won't be receiving any security fixes in the future. After all, maintaining software can be stressful. You may not meet your project funding goals, and users aren't always appreciative of your efforts. It could be that the developer(s) got fed up and just wanted to walk away. I doubt it's anything more suspect than that.

With that said, I think it's safe to conclude the software has simply been discontinued, or "end-of-lifed" as you said. 98.86.119.246 (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bo Chen

As of 17 July 2014 there is a section under "Legal cases" titled Bo Chen. This section contains three separate citations from unreliable sources (From the Trenches World Report www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com, cryptome.org, sribd). The scribd link isn't from court filings or police documents. Additionally, the other two links don't have reporting or appear to be fact checked. A Google search of "Bo Chen," and "Bo Chen Addison arrest" also doesn't turn up any verifiable information. Given the lack of verifiable sources, I have decided to remove the section on Bo Chen from the wiki.

If anyone finds any reliable sources, please feel free to add it to the wiki.

Purgnostic (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would additionally argue that it's a bit tangential to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

End of life and license version 3.1

SHOULD BE 7.1 ??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.110.136 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

3.1 is correct. The license version does not correspond to the software version. —WOFall (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

VeraCrypt

VeraCrypt is an updated fork of TrueCrypt.

Mentioned here: webpage here:

Is it notable enough to mention in the page? 196.215.47.219 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)