
Relaunched TrueCrypt site with original content and documentation - unr3al011
https://www.truecrypt71a.com
======
luck87
It is available the version 7.1a, but the TrueCrypt development has stopped
(for now). An alternative solution is VeraCrypt (build over Truecrypt 7.1a):
[https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/](https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/)

VeraCrypt says to add extra security features (ex. TrueCrypt uses
PBKDF2-RIPEMD160 with 1000 iterations whereas in VeraCrypt we use 327661):
[https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostConten...](https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostContent_1313325)

Do you think VeraCrypt is an valid alternative? or have they only fix
something in TrueCrypt ( like change the CONSTANT value of iterations )

~~~
dtech
They're your most realistic option right now. They are actively developing it
and added things like newer algorithms (e.g. SHA2).

There's CipherSched but that is basically a completely new program/rewrite
which is very far from done.

However, I don't agree with VeraCrypts choices. They've changed several things
that make mounting slow (0,5s -> 10s), which is annoying, especially if you
mistype the password. Providing the option for increased security isn't bad,
but they refuse to give users overrides to disable those slow security options
because they are of the opinion that users can't assess the tradeoff for
themselves. Which leads people to just go back to truecrypt because it works
way better in their minds.

~~~
m82labs
This is an odd conclusion to come to. Are there a lot of users of
True/Veracrypt that don't understand this? I guess I just don't see my
grandparents using either of these packages, and I can't imagine a lot of
"normal" users "trying out" a new encryption program.

~~~
kijin
10 seconds is ridiculous, especially if you know what you're doing and use
strong passphrases.

The passphrase to one of my TrueCrypt volumes is around 30 characters long.
It's not completely random, so let's say it only has 2 bits of entropy per
character. That's 60 bits total. A brute-force attack would take an average of
2^59 guesses before it succeeds.

At 10 seconds per guess, we're looking at approximately 180 billion years to
crack my passphrase. Even if you devoted a million computers to the job (as an
extremely well-funded adversary might do), it would still take 180,000 years.

If you weakened the PBKDF to take 1 second instead, it would take 18,000 years
to crack my relatively weak passphrase using a million computers. That's still
long enough that I don't care at all. Moreover, if I were really paranoid, I
can easily bring it back to the 180,000-year mark (or more) by adding a few
more characters to my passphrase, which would only take another second to
type. So why wait 10 seconds?

~~~
monort
You can bruteforce much faster on GPU.

E.g. 20*10^9 ripe160 hashes per second on 8x AMD R9 290X (price is around
$3000): [https://hashcat.net/oclhashcat/](https://hashcat.net/oclhashcat/)

60 bits are not secure against attacker with medium budget.

~~~
luck87
Some years before oclHashCat support, I buil a gpu cracker for truecrypt
volume TrueCrack
([https://code.google.com/p/truecrack/](https://code.google.com/p/truecrack/))
. To be honest oclHashCat has better performance. Now the board of the
oclHashCat tests ( AMD R9 290X ) costs about 300 euro (not $3000).

~~~
monort
They used 8 cards for that test.

------
nickysielicki
If I was concerned about my data, I wouldn't touch TrueCrypt with a 10 foot
pole. More specifically I wouldn't touch Windows.

Developers don't abruptly shut down projects. If there are problems with the
code, they release statements and patches. If they lose interest in the
project, they call it orphaned and ask for maintainers. If it's a mix of the
two, they at least say so.

But what happened with TrueCrypt was truly bizarre. No warning. No phase-out.
Telling people to move to BitLocker?

I think there's only one way to interpret that. They did something bizarre
because it was all the noise they could make without telling us what really
happened. AKA some of their developers got served gag orders.

But what on earth could a TrueCrypt dev be gagged for? A gag order implies
that some three-letter-agency had enough foresight to know they were planning
to disclose something. If it was that there was a government backdoor in
TrueCrypt itself, how would NSA/FBI know that they discovered it? How would
they know that it could be tied back to them? Why didn't the audit [1] catch
it? Gag orders are pretty loose in terms of legality in the first place, but
even still, would a gag order prevent them from releasing a statement about a
security hole (without mentioning its origin) and releasing patches?

It's a total guess, but my theory is that TrueCrypt discovered something
outside their codebase (EG: Windows itself) that was undermining encryption.
They reached out to Microsoft, who contacted FBI/NSA, and they were served
their gag orders. This is the only theory I can think of that makes a gag
order possible, in other situations the FBI/NSA wouldn't have been able to
know about a disclosure before it happened.

[1]: istruecryptauditedyet.com

~~~
jaawn
If they discovered an issue in Windows, and it led to gag orders, why would
they tell people to move to BitLocker (a Microsoft product)?

~~~
ionised
I suspect that by recommending encryption software that is highly unreliable
like Bitlocker (by virtue of being closed source and developed by Microsoft
who we know cannot be trusted) they sent up a huge red flag to their user
base.

Nobody would expect the TrueCrypt devs to recommend something like this, so it
is immediately suspect and all anyone really needs to asusme something isn't
right (like a gag order).

~~~
hsod
Occam's Razor tells us that the TrueCrypt devs were done with the project and
don't share your opinions of Bitlocker and Microsoft.

~~~
ionised
Except they do share those opinions and very suspiciously changed them in
their final message. So what you believe is the simplest explanation doesn't
work here.

~~~
ryanlol
Who are you to say what opinions they share? Especially considering davts
emails...

------
piq
Who are we? Why do you need cookies to deliver your service? I rather trust
steve gibsons website
[https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm](https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm)

~~~
luck87
Yes, I agree that this is the truth. This sort of mystery about the end of
truecrypt was unfounded.

------
jordigh
"Free open source"? Did they actually get an open source license this time?

If not, this website could be in violation of the license, but as discussed
before, it's very unlikely the TrueCrypt authors would pursue this copyright
violation.

~~~
unr3al011
thats the original caption from their old website.

------
Paul_S
Why can't the original devs just leak the reason behind all this? I don't
expect it on their official website but honestly, how difficult is it to just
let people know?

~~~
brillenfux
And what? Eat bad food with a bad view for the rest of your life?

------
zz1
No link or mention of the audit? I guess it would be very useful!

------
ralala
What do you think about
[https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page](https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page)

------
v4n4d1s
Why not [https://truecrypt.ch/](https://truecrypt.ch/)?

------
metaos
good work :)

