Article is spot on. After a few weeks we broke quarenteen and flew to stay with the grandparents. We are lucky the grandparents are youngish and able to help.
Before someone says I have Firefox/Chrome on my iPhone; they are just skins for Safari. Same vulnerabilities which exist on Safari(Webkit) can be exploited there as well since they aren't allowed to use their browser engine.
If I understand you correctly, "open source" is not a kind of openness and should be disregarded. Assuming that is so, for the sake of argument, what does count as openness?
If the maintenance costs are low enough. Replacing battery packs is not going to be cheap. It costs about $3000 USD to replace the battery pack in a Prius (I assume all electric cars will cost more). Generally the pack has to be replaced between 5 and 10 years depending on use.
Not sure why you were downvoted here. This is my exact concern. Batteries don't last forever, and they're expensive to refurbish or (more common, I assume) replace at the sizes necessary for an electric car.
Even when faced with this clear evidence, people consider TrueCrypt as being safe.
VeryCrypt is under active development, so the situation is much better since the issues can be fixed in the future releases. However, people might blindly follow whatever is reported and consider VeraCrypt bulletproof regardless of the previous experience with other crypto projects.
> Even when faced with this clear evidence, people consider TrueCrypt as being safe.
I don't understand. If your definition of 'safe' requires that no vulnerabilities can ever be discovered in a product, you're going to have to give up and never use a computer again.
Having some high-end crypto experts and some of the best bug hunters audit your product and then fix the discovered vulnerabilities puts you at the higher end of the security spectrum.
> VeryCrypt is under active development, so the situation is much better since the issues can be fixed in the future releases.
Counter-point for consideration: any non-maintenance code changes may introduce new issues that weren't part of this audit.
It is safe. It's safe in the same way that your valuables locked inside a 4 ton safe in your basement are safe. Or in the same way that being a passenger on a plane is safe. Or even in the same way that SSL is safe.
From the report you linked:
> While CS believes these calls will succeed in all normal
scenarios, at least one unusual scenario would cause the calls to fail and rely on poor sources of entropy
Essentially, there are outlying circumstances in which it might be more vulnerable than usual, which is true of pretty much anything.
