5月 292014
 

TrueCrypt项目背后的匿名开发者突然将truecrypt.org官网定向到sourceforge.net项目主页,宣布项目终止开发,并用红字警告使用TrueCrypt不安全,软件可能包含未修正的安全问题。TrueCrypt最新更新的程序签名与1月份发布的程序使用的签名相同,因此网站发布的信息不是恶作剧而是官方声明。

约翰霍普金斯大学的Matthew Green教授去年组织了对TrueCrypt的安全审计,他有点担心是不是安全审计促使了开发者决定退出。他对开发者的决定也感到失望,认为开发者本来可以改变许可证让其他人能更容易的接管这个项目。他表示安全审计工作会继续下去

一位与TrueCrypt团队关系密切的开发者给出了他的解释:TrueCrypt失去了动力和主要开发者。他认为TrueCrypt很早以前就出现了死亡的迹象,程序已经很长时间没有引入新功能。引导扇区代码从5.0版以来一直没有变化,很可能是引导扇区的主要开发者不再参与项目了。

此外,TrueCrypt使用微软提供的API处理休眠/睡眠,但Windows 8之后微软不再提供此类API,而Windows是TrueCrypt最主要的市场,诸多困难最终使得开发者决定关闭项目。

11月 012013
 

Friday October 26, 2007 by Jason ‘vanRijn’ Kasper | 15 Comments

I did a small performance test yesterday and was very surprised by the results. I wanted to see which encrypted filesystem was faster betweeen Truecrypt and LUKS. I created 2 20-gig files, one with Truecrypt and the other with LUKS encryption. Then I mounted the encrypted files and copied a 180 meg file 10 times, synced, and then reported the time taken. Here’s the results:

Truecrypt test:
time (for f in $(seq 1 10); do; cp bigfile truecrypt-mnt/bigfile-$f; done;)
0.22s user 26.30s system 15% cpu 2:47.06 total

LUKS test:
time (for f in $(seq 1 10); do; cp bigfile luks-mnt/bigfile-$f; done;)
0.20s user 8.40s system 15% cpu 55.169 total

Wow. Now, granted, this is a simple enough test, but does anyone have any ideas why LUKS would be 3 times faster in writing 1.8 Gigs than Truecrypt?
http://movingparts.net/2007/10/26/truecrypt-versus-luks-speed-test/