TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker?

Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by pearjuice on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @04:31PM (#7812664)

Not needed.

Just quickly scroll through the diff (better version here: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/e5791d5703325b9cf6d1) and you will immediately see that all that was done is disable/remove a majority of the functionality.

    AbortProcess ("INSECURE_APP");
    Print ("WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure");

They added exceptions/rose errors/printed warnings everywhere where you could possibly encrypt and all of it reflects their intent at the Sourceforge page.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by makmanalp on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @06:44PM (#7813444)

The whole point of the underhanded c contest is that the code looks extremely benign, and you wouldn't know that it's doing something evil by staring at it for a short time. Example: http://underhanded.xcott.com/?page_id=22

Anyway, it was a joke.

edit: But I'm not touching that binary with a 10 foot pole, thank you. There isn't even any guarantee yet that that source compiles into the given binary.

[ Parent | on HN ]