ghostlands@???:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:01:44 +0000 "sajolida"
> <sajolida@???> wrote:
>> I'm replacing this in the thread it belongs. ghostlands, please do
>> "Reply" to this email if you want to stay in the loop.
>
>> PS: And please reply inline (below the quote) as we usually do.
>
>> ghostlands@???:
>>> Hi, random lurker speaking up here with a question.
>>>
>>> I don't mean to distract from the topic, but regarding
>>> interoperability, what about FreeOTFE? It's source was
>> available,
>>> and someone else has picked it up and forked it on GitHub as
>>> DoxBox: https://github.com/t-d-k/doxbox
>>>
>>> Is there any consideration underway to support this solution and
>>> its development? I know it wouldn't solve all of the issues with
>>> the absence of TrueCrypt, but it certainly would broaden the
>>> relevance of LUKS.
>
>> Right, if we're left with interoperability as the main reason to
>> stick
>> with the TrueCrypt disk format, then we might as well look at this
>> option the other way around and advertise tools to open LUKS on
>> other operating systems.
>
> How's this? :)
>
> No interest in my DoxBox suggestion/question, though? I'm curious
> if anyone here thinks this is code worth using or even just paying
> attention to. It is literally the only serious LUKS implementation
> for Windows, it seems possibly important.
Hi, and sorry for not answering better your previous email.
I knew about FreeOFTE but I didn't knew it was taken over by doxbox,
thanks for that info.
Indeed, I think having better LUKS tools in other operating systems
would also be a valid way to go. Doxbox seems to be quite fresh still
but active. I hope it lives long. Ah, and we would also need an
implementation for Mac OS X.
--
sajolida
