Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiskCryptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Arguments from the delete camp much stronger and also many keep voters have had few involvement outside the topic.--JForget 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DiskCryptor

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
DiskCryptor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable software. 1,800 Google hits[1], at first glance from typical download sites, is not impressive for this type of product. Few reviews, no news articles, nothing to indicate that this has captured the attention of reliable independent sources yet. Fram (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is the first complete open source full diskencryption software free availeble. It is a fundamental program. The beta stage does mean it is not feature complete, but it is full useable. Similar windows programs would have version 1.0 in this stage. It's even better than Truecrypt 5.0.
It's new and the webpage is in russian that's why google rank it not high!
here you can compare how Diskcryptor competes to other software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software
please have a look at the official website:
DiskCryptors russian website DiskCryptor english (Google Translation)
It's active developed, active user forum
Cakruege (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Cakruege (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - This is the first complete open source full disk encryption software. It is not simply a modified version of TrueCrypt and has been available for longer than TrueCrypt 5.0 has been out. Anyone who believes this software is simply a re-branded/stolen TrueCrypt is quite mistaken and has obviously not compared the two by actually installing and using both. I have and they are quite different. It is quite clear that DiskCryptor had full drive encryption before TrueCrypt did and while it did create TrueCrypt compatible volumes it is most definitely not true crypt. This is groundbreaking software. The only reason it has not yet been mentioned heavily in news sources is that it has only been stable for a couple of months and the little documentation there is exists only in Russian so there has been little publicity. People will be finding out about it and regardless it is notable as being the first open source utility to support full drive encryption on the system drive of a Windows PC. --BenFranske (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Модификация сделана для повышения стойкости к атакам на предсказание внутреннего состояния PRNG. Modifications made to improve the resistance to attacks on the prediction of the internal condition PRNG." - it reads like he took TrueCrypt source code (apparently 4.3) and made modifications for "better security", and (more recently) whole-disk encryption.
The Wikipedia page for DiskCryptor was created on the same day (5 Feb) as the release of TrueCrypt 5.0 - which incidentally features whole-disk encryption. Considering that he's using TrueCrypt source code, the main selling point of being the "first" program with full-disk encryption is highly suspect.
I have no affiliation with TrueCrypt, but know that it's an old, trusted project. I read about the TrueCrypt 5.0 release on Slashdot, went to the Comparison of disk encryption software, saw DiskCryptor stashed at the top of the list, explored a bit - and have come to the conclusion that at best DiskCryptor is a modification of TrueCrypt trying to steal some thunder or market share, and at worst is malicious.
Even if the software turns out to be worthy of a page, it needs to be completely re-written (the English poor to the point of incomprehensibility, and it has no references to back up its claims). The page is neither notable nor are its claims easily verifiable (who is going to look in his source code and check that it does what he says, and that there are no trojans in the binaries?)
— Winter Breeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
it's no modification, it's a new program but compatible. It's like Word vs. OpenOffice both reads .doc-files. There is nothing malicious, the source is open. 88.73.109.102 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 88.73.109.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
wrt the comment "who is going to look in his source code and check that it does what he says, and that there are no trojans in the binaries?" - maybe I'm just pointing out the patently obvious, but: the same can be said for any opensource security software which has only been around for a few months. The fact that noone has written anything like it for Windows before, and then given it away as open source makes this software notable as, on the subject of disk encryption, that's a pretty major achievement! Nuwewsco (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DiskCryptor is a modification of TrueCrypt trying to steal some thunder or market share, and at worst is malicious. Who is going to check that the binaries on his website have no trojans?
The same question you can address truecrypt authors. But it will be a real problem because of non working user forum (3-4 months?). DiskCryptor is an opensource under GPL. (compare with truecrypt with its stupid dubious license?) Feel free to compile source code and check this. --Zmi007 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
TrueCrypt has been going for years and has many authors. If TrueCrypt had Trojans it would have been a huge conspiracy and we would have heard about it on Slashdot by now. The same cannot be said of DiskCryptor - you could have anything hidden in the code (but maybe left out of the source file), and probably only TrueCrypt developers would know enough about the code to notice. That will change when you have more authors, users and give it time for people to dig in the code and not find anything.
I've looked up the TrueCrypt license on [[2]], and the "dubious license" is probably a hangover from the ancestral Encryption for the Masses software. They would prefer to make it GPL, but legally they can't. I don't know if DiskCryptor is based on TrueCrypt (it only sounds like it on the [freed0m.org] page). Note that one may not modify TrueCrypt without also including the 'dubious' TrueCrypt license: "ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL apply INSTEAD OF those given above." — Winter Breeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
DiskCryptor not contains any part of TrueCrypt source code. (ntldr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — xxx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • First working version of the DiskCryptor was released in November 2007, when there were no plans stated on http://www.truecrypt.org/future.php to include system partition encryption feature. At that time, DiskCryptor was called "TrueCrypt WDE", and immediately a post has been put on TrueCrypt's forum, to announce this new product. Shortly, however, the post has been deleted, due to the argument that the program cannot bear "TrueCrypt" in it's name, as it is a trademark. In addition to that, the developer's of the TrueCrypt, also noted to the developer of "TrueCrypt WDE" that he cannot use the GPL license for his program either, because if he took parts of the TrueCrypt code, then he has to use the TrueCrypt's license as well.
So therefore the next release of the program became known as the DiskCryptor, and the code that was previously taken from the TrueCrypt project, has been rewritten, in order to be able to use the GPL license.
So it can be argued, that the advent of the DiskCryptor was an initiative for the TrueCrypt developers, to speed up their development of the system partition encryption feature, and announce that on their future plan page.
Regarding malware/trojan speculations, - one is innocent until proven guilty, - this is what an accepted standard is, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtraue (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Shtraue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete promotion of nn product Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has some encyclopaedic material though, but it has no sources to comply with WP:V and WP:OR. If editors can show that they have reliable sources from where they wrote this article, then I'll change my delete opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete original page very badly written and biased, but has since been re-written as an encyclopaedic stub. Non-notable software, and sounded suspicious initially because it appeared on the day of TrueCrypt 5 release, and sounded on freed0m.org like a TrueCrypt derivation. Also stashed at top of comparison chart Template:Winter Breeze 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PGP was originally written by Phil Zimmermann - a single author. Presumably we shouldn't trust PGP either? Nuwewsco (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if it's legit. It's certainly as notable as most of the random stuff Wikipedia has articles on. I rewrote the article to resemble an encyclopedia entry. -- BenRG (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep DiskCryptor not contains any part of TrueCrypt source code and been released before that TrueCrypt 5.0. Please view release date on page http://sourceforge.net/projects/diskcryptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.169.246 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 208.72.169.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep DiskCryptor is only one program with boot-time authentication for Windows under GPL--Zmi007 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmi007 (talk • contribs) — Zmi007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete nn software Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - DiskCryptor has been around since late 2007; it's not "just been a hacked version of TrueCrypt, put out after truecrypt was released", which is what the above editor seems to imply.
Furthermore, if you do a little more digging with DiskCryptor, you'll find that any truecrypt code which may have been included was written out of it by the second release.
It is the first system of its kind which was released as opensource; TrueCrypt's version was only released today - a couple of months later.
This page is new, and has only just been created, yet it seems one of the main reasons given for deleting it just seems to be that it doesn't have much text on it... It's unreasonable to expect a new article to grow into a full 5000+ word essay the same day as its creation!
XFireRaidX (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the original version of the page for context of the original discussion [4].

Please don't use line separators. It breaks up the conversation! Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Software the article is about is encyclopedic, and should certainly be given the chanced to be edited into something more substantial (atm it's just a stub). Where on earth do comments relating to "possible malware" come from?! I can see absolutely no grounding for this, and comments like that certainly are far from complying with WP:AGF! Nuwewsco (talk 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the original version [5]. If all you know is that the page for appeared on the day of the TrueCrypt release, and that the freed0m.org website makes DiskCryptor sound like a derivation of TrueCrypt, you can see where one might suspect "hey, what if ithis is a trojan?" Winter Breeze (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep. From the page's history, originally it was fairly incomprehensible, but has since been cleaned up. Subject is notable for the reasons given above. Raftermast (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Q T C 12:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.