4 ms·
I'm really confused. Which isn't unusual really, but in this case I think it is understandable.
by braum 12y ago
I'm really confused. Which isn't unusual really, but in this case I think it is understandable.
- alecdbrooks 12y agoI'm with you. This seems like an odd move, given that most likely only a minority of their users used XP for some time. Why haven't they been warning Windows Vista, 7 and 8 users to use Bitlocker for years (not to mention Mac OS X and Linux users)? Perhaps I just missed the warnings, but I am really puzzled. I suppose the developers could have just found a massive vulnerability (perhaps they're doing their own audit in advance of the public one?).
- axx 12y agoIf you scroll to the bottom, you'll find this link: http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OtherPlatforms.html http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OtherPlatforms.html
- alecdbrooks 12y agoI saw that. It's just that taking this line at face value, it's not clear why they would port TrueCrypt to Linux and Mac OS X or suggest that people using later versions of Windows should use TrueCrypt: >The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP.