4 ms·

If that's the motivation then in 5 years' time, who's to say the new version will work as well (assuming that it also won't be updated)? That doesn't make any s

If that's the motivation then in 5 years' time, who's to say the new version will work as well (assuming that it also won't be updated)? That doesn't make any sense.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CHY872 12y ago
They're saying that one should not continue to use orphaned software (when it's so security critical). So they're stopping the distribution of the encryption part of it, and continuing to distribute the part of the software that decrypts the code. This means that if (in five years) you find an archive that you can't open without TrueCrypt (and you uninstalled it etc) you'll still be easily able to find a signed version that will decrypt it for you. At the same time, the developer clearly doesn't want people to be encrypting new archives with it, so have removed that functionality. Removing the software in total would have lead to many mirror sites springing up, most with unproved providence (and a great opportunity for exploits). This method allows an official version to still exist (unmaintained, but still compatible with the current archives), whilst severely restricting new usages (by strongly warning against it and requiring using the dubious mirrors to obtain the software).
- Zancarius 12y ago
  > This means that if (in five years) you find an archive that you can't open without TrueCrypt (and you uninstalled it etc) you'll still be easily able to find a signed version that will decrypt it for you. That still doesn't seem to answer the point. The differences between 7.1* and the questionable 7.2 are exclusively limited to what was ripped out. In 5 years, 7.1 and 7.2 will likely work precisely the same in terms of decryption. If a glibc update or similar breaks 7.1, it'll likely break 7.2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first comment, but fundamentally it seems like a silly argument to make to suggest that distributing a new release for some measure of future proofing readability is necessary. Outside "don't use this, it's broken," I can't really see "this will still work in 5 years' time" as a valid reason.

If that's the motivation then in 5 years' time, who's to say the new version will work as well (assuming that it also won't be updated)? That doesn't make any sense.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

CHY872 12y ago

They're saying that one should not continue to use orphaned software (when it's so security critical). So they're stopping the distribution of the encryption part of it, and continuing to distribute the part of the software that decrypts the code. This means that if (in five years) you find an archive that you can't open without TrueCrypt (and you uninstalled it etc) you'll still be easily able to find a signed version that will decrypt it for you. At the same time, the developer clearly doesn't want people to be encrypting new archives with it, so have removed that functionality. Removing the software in total would have lead to many mirror sites springing up, most with unproved providence (and a great opportunity for exploits). This method allows an official version to still exist (unmaintained, but still compatible with the current archives), whilst severely restricting new usages (by strongly warning against it and requiring using the dubious mirrors to obtain the software).

Zancarius 12y ago
> This means that if (in five years) you find an archive that you can't open without TrueCrypt (and you uninstalled it etc) you'll still be easily able to find a signed version that will decrypt it for you. That still doesn't seem to answer the point. The differences between 7.1* and the questionable 7.2 are exclusively limited to what was ripped out. In 5 years, 7.1 and 7.2 will likely work precisely the same in terms of decryption. If a glibc update or similar breaks 7.1, it'll likely break 7.2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first comment, but fundamentally it seems like a silly argument to make to suggest that distributing a new release for some measure of future proofing readability is necessary. Outside "don't use this, it's broken," I can't really see "this will still work in 5 years' time" as a valid reason.