Talk:TrueCrypt

Bitlocker, really?

I am using professional and EFS doesn't encrypt filenames and it doesn't support BitLocker, worse I have one machine running home "premium" that doesn't even support EFS or RDP without a patch. Their site says to use BitLoc$er, but it's no replacement for TC which is free and multiplatform.

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)

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)