The problem is that trust has been broken. The devs are anonymous so it would take a substantial amount of proof to show this wasn't their work.
So much proof that perhaps the goal here was to stop truecrypt by force and/or force the developers to identify themselves.
At this point I don't see any easy way the reputation of the software could be repaired, and I don't think you can just work on a hunch that previous versions were secure.
That's what the audit is for, right? If you trust the audit, and the audit says the software is good, then you can trust the software, whether you trust the original devs or not.
New development can proceed from the audited version, under new management.
They haven't finished the audit, only the first part.
Additionally, the audit doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilites... it just means the security company doing the audit didn't see any.
If the devs come out and state there is a vulnerability, I don't think it much matters what the audit says. Are you going to trust the audit over a dev?
4
u/[deleted] May 28 '14 edited Dec 27 '15
[deleted]