Talk:TrueCrypt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:51, 21 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TrueCrypt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Software: Computing C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Cryptography: Computer science Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TrueCrypt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

FreeOTFE

I've added a link in see-also to FreeOTFE, but it was undid with comment don't want to call out any specific alternative unless it is particularly significant, instead the comparison of alternatives is linked - but this software is significant because it's features are identical to TrueCrypt's it also has a quite similar GUI. And there is also no other non-closed-source on-the-fly volume encryption software for Windows. It's now abandoned but as I know there wasn't any security issues with it. Maybe it's fault of small user base but still it is significant name to mention along TrueCrypt. I think it went dead because at the time TC was direct and promising competitor. Doesn't that spell significant ? pwjb (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it went dead because at the time TC was direct and promising competitor. Doesn't that spell significant ?" You pretty much just admitted it's not in the previous sentence when you described it as 'dead'. It might be, in future, but that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL matter. Content in articles still need to meet some degree of notability. If no-one has even heard about it (ideally major media), it just shouldn't be there.

Quote: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." -Rushyo ^Talk 15:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOTFE has been relaunched as 'DoxBox' (https://t-d-k.github.io/doxbox/). You could try adding a link to this instead - but I don't know if it is 'significant'. I would do it myself, but I am the maintainer of DoxBox so could be seen as having a vested interest. Squte (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of life and license version 3.1

SHOULD BE 7.1 ??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.110.136 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 is correct. The license version does not correspond to the software version. —WOFall (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VeraCrypt

VeraCrypt is an updated fork of TrueCrypt.

Mentioned here:^[1] webpage here:^[2]

Is it notable enough to mention in the page? 196.215.47.219 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just poked around in the VeraCrypt source code on codeplex.com. The page said "Browsing changes in <master> as of commit 4ffb715b69c0, Nov 11, 2014", to confirm it was the current source code I was viewing, yet the files still have TrueCrypt copyright! For example, Driver/EncryptedIOQueue.c has "Copyright (c) 2008-2009 TrueCrypt Developers Association. All rights reserved." ... Um... isn't that a sign of ineptness they can't even update the copyright headers in all their "forked" files? 74.10.5.213 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitlocker, really?

I am using professional and EFS doesn't encrypt filenames and it doesn't support BitLocker, worse I have one machine running home "premium" that doesn't even support EFS or RDP without a patch. Their site says to use BitLoc$er, but it's no replacement for TC which is free and multiplatform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.72.234 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please start new topics at the bottom of the discussion page, and please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)
Please focus your comments on changes to be made to the article. I agree that Bitlocker is less than a perfect alternative, however it is mentioned in the article only in relation to the official end-of-life message. —WOFall (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CipherShed

CipherShed is a now available fork of TrueCrypt. here. Thus, alongside VeraCrypt, it provides a viable replacement for TrueCrypt. The article said

There is a proposal for a software fork named CipherShed...

So I changed the text to reflect this. It will then be necessary to update the Wiki article "comparison of disk encryption software" to include CipherShed.

This "alternatives" section ends with an unclear phrase:

According to another discussion,[29] TrueCrypt may still be used on supported platforms, while also watching 3 of the known TrueCrypt forks and one commercial alternative.

Firstly, any discontinued software may be used if it is present on the user's computer. Secondly, who watches what ? - The two, now working forks are CipherShed and VeraCrypt and there are many commercial alternatives.

--Paul Williams (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2375599/veracrypt-fork-of-truecrypt-tips-up

[2] ttps://veracrypt.codeplex.com/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Is it notable enough to mention in the page?
 [[Special:Contributions/196.215.47.219|196.215.47.219]] ([[User talk:196.215.47.219|talk]]) 15:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
+I just poked around in the VeraCrypt source code on codeplex.com.  The page said "Browsing changes in <master> as of commit 4ffb715b69c0, Nov 11, 2014", to confirm it was the current source code I was viewing, yet the files still have TrueCrypt copyright!  For example, Driver/EncryptedIOQueue.c has "Copyright (c) 2008-2009 TrueCrypt Developers Association. All rights reserved."  ... Um... isn't that a sign of ineptness they can't even update the copyright headers in all their "forked" files?   [[Special:Contributions/74.10.5.213|74.10.5.213]] ([[User talk:74.10.5.213|talk]]) 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 == Bitlocker, really? ==