4 ms·

Forks, in no particular order: https://ciphershed.org/ https://ciphershed.org/ https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/ https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ ht

Forks, in no particular order: https://ciphershed.org/ https://ciphershed.org/ https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/ https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ Also, please refer to this stackexchange thread: http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/58994/are-there-any-reasonable-truecrypt-forks http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/58994/are-there-...

jordigh 12y ago
Has the licensing situation been clarified? The original license was not open source, but it seems unlikely that it would be enforced, as that would involve de-anonymising the copyright holders.
- jstalin 12y ago
  There's nothing to clarify. You've summarized it correctly.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    I think perhaps by 'clarification' he was hoping for resolution…
    - LLWM 12y ago
      It is resolved. Just not in the way you want.
- dm2 12y ago
  I don't think anyone has a problem with forks just changing the name of TrueCrypt (see VeraCrypt) and start from there. There is a lot of discussion on the license on the VeraCrypt forums. It's completely reasonable to ask people to stay away from the TrueCrypt name in my opinion, so that his software's reputation would not be tarnished if amateurs or problem-causing people took over the TrueCrypt name. I wish the TrueCrypt end was handled better, but it's unique situation has some educational value.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  No but https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play is.
bhayden 12y ago
https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/ isn't actually a fork, they've done no development, the guys who made the website aren't developers and have no plans to work on it at all. I don't know why everyone keeps linking there. They're also using the truecrypt name which was the ONE thing the original developers said they didn't want forks to do.
- rhizome 12y ago
  It'll come in handy for the NSA or some phishers some day
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >They're also using the truecrypt name which was the ONE thing the original developers said they didn't want forks to do. Well right, they're not a fork so it's not the same kind of problem if they use the name. They're a fansite.

jordigh 12y ago

Has the licensing situation been clarified? The original license was not open source, but it seems unlikely that it would be enforced, as that would involve de-anonymising the copyright holders.

jstalin 12y ago
There's nothing to clarify. You've summarized it correctly.
- wtbob 12y ago
  I think perhaps by 'clarification' he was hoping for resolution…
  - LLWM 12y ago
    It is resolved. Just not in the way you want.
dm2 12y ago
I don't think anyone has a problem with forks just changing the name of TrueCrypt (see VeraCrypt) and start from there. There is a lot of discussion on the license on the VeraCrypt forums. It's completely reasonable to ask people to stay away from the TrueCrypt name in my opinion, so that his software's reputation would not be tarnished if amateurs or problem-causing people took over the TrueCrypt name. I wish the TrueCrypt end was handled better, but it's unique situation has some educational value.
fweespeech 12y ago
No but https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play is.

bhayden 12y ago

https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/ isn't actually a fork, they've done no development, the guys who made the website aren't developers and have no plans to work on it at all. I don't know why everyone keeps linking there. They're also using the truecrypt name which was the ONE thing the original developers said they didn't want forks to do.

rhizome 12y ago
It'll come in handy for the NSA or some phishers some day
Dylan16807 12y ago
>They're also using the truecrypt name which was the ONE thing the original developers said they didn't want forks to do. Well right, they're not a fork so it's not the same kind of problem if they use the name. They're a fansite.