Truecrypt may be compromised
 

those who visit truecrypt's sourceforge page will get this warning
A FOSS project shutters itself and, rather than linking to a fork or posting tarballs of a few versions' worth of source, recommends commercial alternatives. Suspicious

They Recommend to migrate to Bitlocker....an encryption platform by Microsoft that the feds asked for a backdoor. Suspicous.

Some users believe the program was compromised due to a national security letter, or it may be a break-in. Many things don't add up, including the fact that Truecrypt re-issued all of its keys only 4 hours before releasing the new version, 7.2. On top of this - they say they have stopped development because WinXP support has ended... which doesn't add up at all. Even those who audited truecrypt found out suddenly today about the changes and shutdown of the trucrypt project.

At this point it is not recommended to use the new version 7.2

The NSA can break any encryption that they want. It doesn't matter what you use.

no they cant. They might be able to gain access to some systems via side channel attacks, but they rarely break strong encryption. The fundamental math behind encryption holds up even under theoretical quantum mechanics.

truecrypt uses AES 256,

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279619

SourceForge forced a password reset last week citing "changes to how we're storing user passwords."

SourceForge may be compromised as well.

They have back doors to just about everything. If they want the information, they will get it.

That may be, but truecrypt 7.1a was independantly audited recently and no backdoors were found (though that alone may not be definitive).

That being said, backdoors are different from what you said earlier which is clearly false

The HeartBleed exploit was the biggest eye opener in like decades. Everything uses SSL/https and hackers could pull any data from memory at will with it and yet it was only discovered a couple months ago.

http://heartbleed.com/

Heartbleed + WiFi attack! Fun!

http://www.slideshare.net/lgrangeia/...leed-35236317#

There are several suspicious details to this. May 22 sourceforge required a password reset. Recommended bitlocker is ONLY available on Win7 Ultimate and Enterprise (not home or pro), and only available on Win8 Pro and Enterprise (not rt or home).

I'm leaning towards hacked or warrant canary.

And? If you're publishing software on Soureforge, it's all open source, so it can be reviewed by anyone without the need for your personal account information.

Nothing in my Sourceforge account tells them anything about me.

And if you're using the same password for multiple online services, that's pretty freaking dumb.

So I ask again, why does it matter if Sourceforge has been compromised?

1. It can allow a 3rd party to take over a project and push out malicious code.

2. Although software that they host is open source, most people do not check MD5 checksum's of the software that they download, few check that the available executable matches one compiled independently, and few have the capability to audit the millions of lines of code of each version.

Thus, when the chain of trust is potentially broken (such as when SourceForge has been compromised), than any software hosted from the site becomes potentially suspect and should be viewed with suspicion.

All projects on SourceForge are open source and the source code can be reviewed by anyone at any time. Malicious code would have to be exposed right out in the open.

Not checking MD5 checksum's is a user problem and question of sheer laziness. I have very little sympathy for people that don't follow standard procedure.

All software, from all sources, should be viewed with suspicion. Even legitimate software sources like Oracle and Google occasionally try to slip stuff into their installers that the average doesn't want or need.

As a source of open source software, SourceForge gives the user the ability to inspect the actual code and make informed decisions all on their own. If the users aren't doing that, shame on them.

I think initially the concern was that someone (not the devs) was able to delete the archive and release new versions. Especially since the website was simply redirected to the sourceforge page. Just seemed like an odd coincidence at the time.

glad i'm still using the old version

That's a little bit of an overstatement.