![]() ![]() a massive binary blob were worthwhile for me. Pricing is also decent, with a generous free plan and low enterprise rates. ![]() Although not as flexible for tech enthusiasts, Boxcryptor makes up for it with a feature-dense closed system that works in a variety of situations. For my use case of write-once backups (syncing pictures from my camera, which went into the EncFS store and were never modified again, write-once) this attack vector isn't a thing and the tradeoff between incremental uploads vs. Boxcryptor In a market flooded with open-source encryption software, Boxcryptor takes a more commercial approach. One important caveat with EncFS though is that it's not safe to use when you are regularly updating the same file multiple times inside the EncFS store (e.g., don't put your Bills.xlsx spreadsheet that you edit monthly in there) - if an adversary has multiple versions of one of your encrypted files over time (as a cloud host like Dropbox does), they can compare the historic versions of the same file and over a long enough span (hundreds or thousands of updates to a same file), can work out the encryption key. Incremental updates sync to Dropbox instead of one massive encrypted file. Like I'd mount ~/Dropbox/encfs to ~/encfs-mount and it was just like mounting a VeraCrypt or LUKS disk image - do what I need in the mount point, it manages the tree of encrypted files under ~/Dropbox, unmount it when I want it "encrypted at rest" or whatever. What EncFS does is it "mounts" the underlying raw files and presents a regular filesystem you can read/write your non-encrypted data in. With EncFS the raw files that went into my Dropbox folder were all separated out - folders, individual files, each folder/file with a "random" looking name and encrypted contents, but basically when I added a new file to my EncFS store it resulted in one new actual file on disk which would sync to Dropbox as normal. So this was a use case that EncFS worked out better for. I considered using something like a VeraCrypt container or a LUKS encrypted disk image or some similar "one giant encrypted file, that contains all my files" but for my use case (write-only backups), modifying the one big blob file and syncing that could be quite inefficient - one tiny update to the container and the whole entire thing needs to re-upload to Dropbox because it's all one file, and when I've got over 50 GB of contents, that's a 50 GB upload every time I change even one thing in the container. If your data is mainly "write-only" (photo backups or things, files that you create and don't modify and want them to sync encrypted to Dropbox or something), I had some success before using EncFS. Orgīuilding the global movement for the protection of privacy. ![]() Related Subreddits:Ĭonsider donating to one of the organizations that fight for your rights. u/blackhawk_12 Subreddit Rules and Wikiīefore posting in /r/privacy, read the Sidebar Rules.Įnjoy our Wiki! It has all sorts of nifty advice and explains most topics you’re interested in if you’re reading this. "I don't have anything to hide but I don't have anything I want to show you either" Dedicated to the intersection of technology, privacy, and freedom in the digital world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |