4 ms·
I can't tell if you actually don't know who commissioned it or if this is your way of suggesting that the parent comment is a lie. It seems like information you
by napoleond 13y ago
I can't tell if you actually don't know who commissioned it or if this is your way of suggesting that the parent comment is a lie. It seems like information you would have access to, considering your connection with iSEC, no? (I'm not trying to stir up shit, just genuinely curious.)
- tptacek 13y agoWhoah! I'm not saying anyone is being dishonest. I know approximately as much as anyone who can read the linked PDF knows, modulo that I also know a bit about how OTF works because I worked with Matthew Green on coordinating the Truecrypt audit. I was asking for clarification, but my writing style is dry and blunt, so I'm not surprised if I managed to convey something different. I apologize in advance if so. More than anything else, I wrote the comment as a (hopefully mild) F-U to the sentiment that the USG is hellbent on destroying privacy on the Internet. Big parts of it are, sure, but there are good people working inside of it too. :)
- dfc 13y agoI do not work for isec or matasano and I had the same question tptacek posted. The lead developer says that audit was commissioned by "us" and yet page 7 of the audit states: The Open Technology Fund (OTF) engaged iSEC Partners to perform a source-code assisted security review of the CryptoCat iOS application.
- nikcub 13y agoAnother option is that OTF approached CryptoCat, from where their options would be: a) don't do an audit - and the public would ask what they are hiding b) agree to an audit being done, meaning you 'commissioned' it. So it is just as important to know who approached who in this situation.
- tptacek 13y agoOne answer, given downthread, might be that the audit was a requirement attached to grant funding from OTF.