![]() Say, 10 files with 4KB each (create empty files just to have placeholders for something) might create 10*$btsyncBlockSize to be synchronized.Īdd 10 little files to EncFS and you will get 10 encrypted files that are alomst as little as the original ones, which is far away from 10*$btsyncBlockSize. Several small files being magitudes smaller than $btsyncBlockSize added to TrueCrypt creates almost as much single changed fragments inside of the TrueCrypt container as you added files. It tries to avoid fragmentation and it tries to keep as much as concurrent space as possible. Add them to TrueCrypt, wich likely makes TrueCrypt spread them (I don't know about the ballancing algorithm of TrueCrypt in Detail, but that's basically what goes on here) turough the container. Think about several small files with a view KB each. EncFS only provides virtual decrypted views on files, so changes on files go directly to the encrypted file and trigger btsync to synchronize immediately.Īnd the shift problem with EncFS even more unimportant as it is with TrueCrypt. Depending on the amount of stuff you did during the day, this can take several minutes. You need to dismount the TrueCrypt container first and wait for synchronization. Using TrueCrypt has the great disadvantage that you can only rely on consistent synchronization for dismounted containers. That's why I'm talking about syncing dismounted containers in particular and the tricks around them.Īs I just wrote here, I go for EncFS too and I like it pretty much. (I love all their projects, keep up the great work!)Īlso you can have them encrypted on the HDD but if you set a folder in the mounted container to be synced you will be syncing unencrypted files and relying only on the 3rd party solution encryption. Not implying anything about the BT guys in particular but just talking in general. I didn't mean that AES 128 isn't secure enough, but that leaving your encryption to 3rd party, especially in the era of PRISM is not considered serious solution for any at least half privacy concerned individual. That works well and I did not find any problems so far. I am currently using encfs and synchronize the encrypted directory over btsync. Your point about shifted data is correct but I doubt TrueCrypt uses that a lot as it is a very uncommon operation that triggers worst-case behavior also in most of the filesystems. The main point of this solution is that the files are encrypted on disk nad not only over the network. Lets not get into the discussion of AES 128 vs. Generally lets make this a thread that would be enough for everyone to read and start syncing encrypted stuff safely right away in an optimal way. I'm also very interested if someone managed to corrupt a container already by syncing it? In that case does the trash folder helps? So, if there are people with actual experience, it will be really useful if they can confirm that and add their own observations and advises. Please note, this is information I found around the forum, i'm just about to start testing that myself. No matter how much data you've changed in your container you will have to dismount it, in order for Sync to be able to sync, since it doesn't sync files in use. (By default TryeCrypt doesn't change the container date) On other OS that is not needed (some clarification from people in the known why the behavior is different will be appreciated) BOXCRYPTOR 2.0 AND CLASSIC BOTH UPDATEOn some OS you will have to set TrueCrypt to update the last modified date, so Sync can understand the file is modified and sync it. If the container is not fixed size and even one byte is added or removed it will re-ransfer the whole container because it can't track shifted data. It splits the files in 4mb chunks and will only re-transfer the chunks that have been changed. Sync works well with fixed size encrypted containers. Here is what I have learned so far, please correct/add things so we can make one stop, best practices thread for syncing encrypted stuff. ![]() From what I read the last couple of days around the forum Sync uses AES 128 encryption for the transfers which should be more than enough for most users.īut since it's closed source and most security concerned people prefer to have the control in their own hands I believe a lot of people will be syncing AES 256 TrueCrypt containers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |