According to the ArchWiki, TrueCrypt has a new maintainer and

No, and neither should the wiki.

>using software other people have written

This have pretty shit lincense.

>>59153746
Yeah, where are you pulling this shit from? There's nothing on the wiki about this.

File: Screenshot_20170227_190917.png (22KB, 1273x84px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1273x84px

>>59153830
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TrueCrypt

>>59153830
https://truecrypt.ch/

>>59154248
Yes, and?

>>59154263
Read the second to last sentence

>>59153746
>using anything but the fully audited release

BAKA!!!

https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm

>>59154271
Ahh, okay. Now the question becomes "who in the fuck is the Pure-Privacy Association?"

>>59154291
https://pure-privacy.org/2016/01/new-version-of-truecrypt-released/

>>59154291
https://pure-privacy.org/projects/

>>59154331
>>59154351
And is there any reason whatsoever to trust this organization or any of the software they release?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nIN6Ciw1Ws

>>59153746
The only argument against using Veracrypt is the license (being that they aren't allowed to fork it). At this point, I'm sure the Truecrypt dev isn't crawling out of his shithole to sue some frogs over software that he abandoned.

>>59154375
Not until it's audited by a third party, preferably the one that audited the original truecrypt.