On 2014-05-29 14:18, Justin Bull wrote:
> But why go out in that style? Why not be frank? Why be so careless as to > recommend BitLocker? > > The diff was meticulous but the website and comms were not. It doesn't add > up. The general consensus in some quarters (e.g. encryption and topical IRC channels across various networks) is that the developer(s) were identified and served with a National Security Letter (NSL). Since its existence can't be divulged, and since the suggestion to use BitLocker is ridiculous to anyone with a clue, the demise of the TrueCrypt site and its circumstances is viewed as a canary-in-the-mine. A way of alerting users. Think of Lavabit a year ago and how they were coerced to open up their encryption. They went out of business rather than surrender the keys and create a false sense of security among their users. Cheers, pr3d _______________________________________________ Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
