Keep reading.  As far as I know (and I've not paid diligently close attention to further developments after the aftermath died down, so please update my statements), the consensus is that that last update and the tongue-in-cheek directive to use Bitlocker was likely a warrant canary, i.e. they could no longer be independent and uncompromised so they burned the project, staying legal while upholding principles.

However, shortly thereafter others have taken the previous public open source version, forked it, in some cases begun (and maybe finished) an audit of the code.  The results of those should be usable as secure with some degree of confidence.  YMMV.

sdw

On 7/24/15 7:46 AM, Yush Bhardwaj wrote: