Re: DriveCrypt

Re: DriveCrypt

Secure Home | Search | About

Computer Software Security - Computer security - desktop and server software, encryption and similar subjects 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: DriveCrypt anonymous 11-26-2008
Posted by Anonymous Remailer (austria) on December 2, 2008, 3:12 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

Ari wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2008 01:22:01 -0000, Nightmix-Remailer wrote:
>
> > nemo_outis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Absolutely amazing. No wonder Usenet is such a toilet.
> >>
> >> Thanks for adding your incremental turd.
> >
> > I notice you don't have the balls to refute the fact that you're a
> > congenital liar
>
> My God! nemo lied as a fetus! Nemo, you never told me! lol

Nah, he's just genetically incapable of telling the truth when
he's proved wrong about something because he mistakenly believes
he's saving face. Not quite so afflicted as a poor soul like you,
who's compelled to lie even when the truth sounds better, but the
same general sort of asshole in any case.


Posted by Box750 on November 26, 2008, 11:34 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> 6) The Truecrypt forums are run in an exceedingly autocratic and
> unfriendly way, with many posts arbitrarily removed. Many topics (not
> just the ones in the posting guidelines) are "off limits." Moreover, the
> forums sometimes close unexplained for long periods (a month or more) and
> reemerge with many posts purged. The moderators make it very difficult
> for posters to contact each other directly.

I second that, Truecrypt forums are extremly low quality, they go down
when they feel like it and you can not register with them unless you
use your ISP email which takes away your anonymity.
>
> 7) The license for Truecrypt is NOT open source (e.g., doesn't meet OSI
> criteria) and is quite restrictive.

Quite right, this is the reason why almost all of the Linux
distributions will not include truecrypt, because they do not use the
GPL License. When I have suggested some distro developer to include
Truecrypt out of the box they always point at me at their restrictive
license. Open source does not mean it is necessary GPL licensed.

--
Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com



Posted by Ari on November 28, 2008, 8:22 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:46:38 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> Truecrypt is an excellent program BUT...
>
> 1) You have no idea who the developers are (they remain pseudonymous)
>
> 2) Very few people compile the Windows binaries from source; it is
> exceedingly difficult to generate binaries from source that match the
> binaries provided by Truecrypt (due to compiler options, etc.)
>
> 3) There are NO (zip, nada, zilch) published detailed reviews of the
> source code. Availability of open-source *doesn't* mean that reviews
> actually get done!
>
> 4) Truecrypt has ruthlessley suppressed all earlier versions (from
> wayback, sourceforge, oldapps, etc.) even though they were supposedly
> open-source (thus making incremental review impossible). This is
> ominous!
>
> 5) There is no public mechanism for submission and review of bug
> reports, etc. Any bug database, etc. is CLOSED! to the public, with only
> a "bug report form" available that goes into a black hole unacknowledged.
>
> 6) The Truecrypt forums are run in an exceedingly autocratic and
> unfriendly way, with many posts arbitrarily removed. Many topics (not
> just the ones in the posting guidelines) are "off limits." Moreover, the
> forums sometimes close unexplained for long periods (a month or more) and
> reemerge with many posts purged. The moderators make it very difficult
> for posters to contact each other directly.
>
> 7) The license for Truecrypt is NOT open source (e.g., doesn't meet OSI
> criteria) and is quite restrictive.
>
> There are a number of rationales presented in defence of the above points
> by the developers (e.g., centralized control, quality, reputation, etc.)
> but they are all, IMHO, very weak in contrast to the opposing views.
>
> In short, there is NO substantive public evidence that Truecrypt's source
> code has been the subject of thorough review, nor is there any reason to
> rely on the credentials of the developers (since they remain anonymous).
> In that absence, using Truecrypt is an act of blind faith every bit as
> much (or more!) than using a closed-source encryption program.
>
> Regards,

"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself"
Ken Thompson "Reflections on Trusting Trust"

Posted by nemo_outis on November 28, 2008, 8:51 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> "You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself"
> Ken Thompson "Reflections on Trusting Trust"

I don't even trust code that I wrote :-)

Regards,



Posted by Dave U. Random on December 1, 2008, 10:32 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
nemo_outis wrote:

>
> > "You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself"
> > Ken Thompson "Reflections on Trusting Trust"
>
> I don't even trust code that I wrote :-)

Join the club.




Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: DriveCrypt November 26, 2008, 6:11 pm
Re: DriveCrypt December 1, 2008, 9:40 am
DriveCrypt July 7, 2009, 4:29 am
bestcrypt 7.20 vs drivecrypt 4.4 December 18, 2006, 7:37 am
DriveCrypt Plus Boot Problem November 16, 2008, 3:50 pm
Drivecrypt won't open dcv file on DVD disk February 10, 2008, 11:57 am
Drivecrypt pre-boot auth versus multiple users October 11, 2005, 3:12 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy