Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Security Encryption

TrueCrypt Cryptanalysis To Include Crowdsourcing Aspect 131

msm1267 (2804139) writes "A cryptanalysis of TrueCrypt will proceed as planned, said organizers of the Open Crypto Audit Project who announced the technical leads of the second phase of the audit and that there will be a crowdsourcing aspect to phase two. The next phase of the audit, which will include an examination of everything including the random number generators, cipher suites, crypto protocols and more, could be wrapped up by the end of the summer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TrueCrypt Cryptanalysis To Include Crowdsourcing Aspect

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Crowdsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <> on Monday June 02, 2014 @05:04PM (#47149653) Homepage

    Why? It is already open sourced.

  • by jcochran ( 309950 ) on Monday June 02, 2014 @05:22PM (#47149811)

    You just might want to look 'Diverse Double-Compiling' as a method of countering the attack described by Ken Thompson in 'Reflections on Trusting Trust'. A paper on DDC is at []

  • Re:Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 02, 2014 @06:19PM (#47150289)

    Why did you trust it in the first place? You trust unaudited code because the author says its fine but won't trust audited code that the author abandoned?

  • Re:Crowdsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Monday June 02, 2014 @07:41PM (#47150853)

    You can't fork it.

    Are you sure.

    The license is actually highly restrictive.

    Insofar as lawyers don't like the wording as its a bit ambiguous on some fine details; but its not as restrictive you seem to think.

    Moreover, for the license to actually be a problem someone would have to come forward, establish they actually have copyright standing, and then sue you over making a fork.

    So what realistically what are the risks? That some anonymous devs who shutdown the project and have advocated everyone switch to alternative systems is going to come out of the woodwork to sue you for copyright infringment and 'damages' despite your best efforts to follow their license which DOES actually allow for forking, and for which you wouldn't be charging for copies. So there are no profits to sue for then there is the acute impossibility of you 'damaging' their interests given they discontinued the original project and burned it to the ground.

    I honestly don't understand the fear. I mean sure there is a risk there, but if you incorporate a nonprofit, continue to give it away for free, and retain the terms of the license; the risk small.

    Even if the authors did come out of the woodwork, and sue you, so what? So your non-profit shuts down - worst case. More likely by far to just walk away with little more than a cease and desist and/or a small fine, and that's assuming the court even finds against you (which given the ambiguity of the license, and your attempt to adhere to it as best as possible) isn't all that likely in the first place.

    Yet, the lawyers say its 'highly restrictive' and 'dangerous' to anyone who goes near -- same lawyers who approved the non-compete clauses that now have silicon valley under a class action? Where was their sage advice about risk then?

  • Re:Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Monday June 02, 2014 @08:33PM (#47151169)

    Why would these organizations switch to unknowns? If they trusted truecrypt up to this point, why not continue to trust? These closed source applications could be backdoored and there's no way of really finding out. If you think source auditing is difficult, try auditing a binary.

    It was never possible to trust truecrypt or anything else with 100% certainty.

  • Re:Crowdsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2014 @01:28AM (#47152531) Homepage

    Who is going to stop you? The authors are anonymous so who could claim to be the copyright holder to come and stop you?

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.