On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:40:58 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote: > > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by > > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the > > in-kernel ecryptfs these days? > > Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you are using works > for you why not stick with it.
Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :( > I still prefer encfs, although I have > admittedly never tried ecryptfs, for the following reasons: > > * It's FUSE, completely userspace and requires no kernel support > (other than FUSE) and no special privileges to mount (other than > fusermount). On the other hand, it does seem quite a bit slower. Also, it means that your encrypted files much be user readable (IIRC) so someone could copy them for a more leisurely attempt at reading them. > * You can have multiple layers of encryption on on source > directory. E.g. two different passwords can give you two > different views of the filesystem. That's interesting, a bit of an edge case but interesting nonetheless. > * In the documentation at least, it says when you upgrade ecryptfs > you should first copy the files from the old ecryptfs to an > unencrypted filesystem, and then copy it to the new ecryptfs. > That seems like something some people won't want to do. That does seem a major drawback. I've not used ecryptfs that much, although I use to use encfs. I did try using it on a remote box on top of sshfs and the performance was appalling. -- Neil Bothwick "We are Microsoft of Borg. Prepare to...." The application "assimilation" has caused a General Protection Fault and must exit immediately.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
