Thank you for your hard and unappreciated work for the last 10 years.
But if you're no longer interested in continuing to devleop TrueCrypt, could you please replace the license on 7.1a with one of the OSI-approved, DFSG-compatible licenses so that other people can keep developing and using TrueCrypt if they want to? I know that you think it's risky to keep using TrueCrypt, but there seem to be plenty of people who are willing to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to discover and fix any security issues.
An email sent to the auditing team and/or a message published on the official website, signed with your usual keys, should suffice.
I guess I can buy that declaring it insecure because the dev team is no longer maintaining it makes sense.
Assuming this is legit, I wonder if the move toward cloud storage and mobile devices made them feel that they were slipping into a niche need. I disagree (to some extent), but maybe they felt the bulk of their usefulness was behind them.
Also, why didn't they make it easy to continue to project with the license, and why do they keep saying that forking Truecrypt is "harmful"?
EDIT: Sorry - as brazzy and NickSharp kindly point out below, the letter was imagined and written by Steve Gibson. As the HN title at the moment is "One of the TrueCrypt Devs Responded", I missed that.
-"As far as we know, TrueCrypt is utterly uncrackable"
-"WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues"
It makes sense to post such a warning to a product with no known vulnerabilities, if it's to remain unsupported. What if a bug becomes public tomorrow? Are you going to keep current with the news and analyze allegations, despite having given up supporting the tool? These crypto attacks are often pretty hard to understand...