[mark212]

read the article before flaming. The author lays out a very well supported case for concluding that PLR wrote the E4M code then was hired by SecurStar to turn it into a commercial product. Also claims PLR was one of the TrueCrypt programmers, so yes, the title is accurate as far as what the author is claiming in the article.

[acqq]

Can you please quote the exact part where we can see that PLR was one of the TrueCrypt programmers? I somehow missed that what you claim while (admittedly) speed-reading, namely, I've got only this in the article:

"Indeed, even today the question of who launched the software remains unanswered. “The origin of TrueCrypt has always been very mysterious,” says Matthew Green".

And also as Mahn writes:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383392

"The article is unclear as for whether he was still involved with TrueCrypt by the time they got him though. It sounds like he had quite a lot going on to even care for TrueCrypt at that point."

I surely don't dispute that PLR wrote E4M and that TrueCrypt was kind of "fork" of that (see again my older post). But the following product is not the same thing as the original source, just as Marc Andreessen didn't "wrote the Internet Explorer" even if the later was once based on some Mosaic source.

And HN is generally against editorializing the titles to make them more linkbaity. And this one is surely such at the moment.

[pwnna]

OP of this post here. Not sure why you're downvoted and tried to upvote it to rebalance.

I also realized after reading the article for the second time that it did not say that PLR is TC's author directly, but rather that it is unclear if he is.

I made a mistake while first posting as my reading made me believe he's the author of TC. I tried to point it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11382412

Additionally, Matthew Green's twitter also further reinforced that belief. However it is too late for me to change the title but I'm not sure what I would even change it to. After all, it seems his original work is the foundation of TC (which you can argue to be different, but the title question remains).

Edit: @matthew_d_green's twitter has also published corrections at this point. However when I first learned about the post I only saw his initial tweet. It's a shame that I didn't realize that PLR is actually not the author/maintainer, tho.

[acqq]

Thanks to you and lvs. At least I see the title was just changed to the original article's from the linkbaity one to which I've complained. Now it's finally

"He Always Had a Dark Side"

[pwnna]

I'm not sure if that accurately reflect why this is relevant either. I think it is fairly significant that PLR is very much connected to TC (and it is suspected that he is involved with TC financially).

I do not have a better title suggestion at this point, however.

[acqq]

Please see:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466

[misnome]

But this means absolutely nothing.

[lvs]

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I agree. The article does not say what the HN title says. It's plain as day.

[br1b]

Paul Le Roux stole E4M source from SecurStar...

I surely don't dispute that PLR wrote E4M....

[acqq]

Writing something is not equal to owning. The topic here is the source in ownership of SecurStar which apparently PLR produced while working for SecurStar.

Just like if you'd work for Microsoft and then the code you produced while working there, under the contract that you've signed that the code belongs to them, you put into your own program. You wrote the program but the code you've put there is stolen.