I've tested many open and closed source programs.
Closed source programs are very often the fastest and most feature rich.
DriveCrypt scored good on both points. Ok some functionallity is stripped but still scores better then many others functionality wise.
The functionality table the put online is far from complete so I hope they put a freely downloadeble 30-day trail online.
Still... by offering a "castrated" open-source version of DriveCrypt, SecurStar has proven *nothing*. How can they prove to us that those "certain features" removed are not actually the key to security compromise??
You can't know. But you could use the opensource version. So I have nothing against the stripping of the program. You decide if enough functionalty is left.
What bothers me more is the method of distribution.
Open source doesn't mean it's safe. So it needs to be checked by many ppl that can be trusted and are skilled enough.
If the flaming against SecureStar is anything to go by not many are going to buy a closed source version to get access to the open source version.
And after it has been approved by the community the souce (and executebles) need to be signed and distributed. Where to store the signatures?
So I think SecureStar deserves a break for offering a _good_ opensource program.
But the distribution method isn't as good as it could be.
Paranoid, waiting for StrongDisk to take teh same step