From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <htd@fancy-poultry.org>
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.24])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Sat, 17 May 2014 09:08:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 09:08:06 +0200
From: Heinz Diehl <htd@fancy-poultry.org>
Message-ID: <20140517070806.GA2130@fancy-poultry.org>
References: <20140516111139.GC31000@tansi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140516111139.GC31000@tansi.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Truecrypt audit
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: dm-crypt@saout.de

On 16.05.2014, Arno Wagner wrote: 

> I just want to warn everybody not to place too great stock 
> into these results. I have participated in similar, non-public
> analyses and they can only ever go so deep. Cleverly hidden or
> disguised backdoors may easily be overlooked...

I agree.

I posted the article because of TC's widespread use, and I'm not aware
of any comprehensive review/audit of its source (I'm not using TC
myself).