securefs

Well, time to advertise my own competing offering: https://github.com/netheril96/securefs. Works on Win, Linux, Mac and BSD.

Love gocryptfs but it doesn't work well on Mac. securefs[1] works fine on both Linux & Mac. [1] https://github.com/netheril96/securefs

I wasn’t satisfied with the options available, so I wrote my own: https://github.com/netheril96/securefs. It has authenticated encryption, highest quality of password stretching, and works on both Unix-like and Windows.

If it is not against the rules, I want to promote my project (https://github.com/netheril96/securefs) here. It is essentially the same functionality, but with authenticated encryption, better password hashing and optionally file size obfuscation (but no fancy UI).

My work: https://github.com/netheril96/securefs

I would also add: 8. Securefs [1] Gocryptfs has a comparison of these projets, here [2]. Focused on Windows only, to my experience, securefs is the one that is working the best as it is not using dokany but winfsp (FUSE for Windows). With all other solutions using dokany, the copy or sync of large number of files is damn slow or hanging. [1] https://github.com/netheril96/securefs [2] https://nuetzlich.net/gocryptfs/comparison/

Time to advertise my open source encryption filesystem: https://github.com/netheril96/securefs

securefs[1] is a command line tool and it works on Linux, Windows and MACOS. This tool does folder based encryption. SiriKali[2] is a Qt/C++ based GUI tool that acts as a front end to securefs and it works on Linux, Windows and MACOS. These two tools make secure management of files between the three operating systems and cloud storages very easy. [1] https://github.com/netheril96/securefs [2] https://mhogomchungu.github.io/sirikali/

If you are using disk utility to create an encrypted container file (as opposed to an on-disk encrypted volume), you may want to check my open source project https://github.com/netheril96/securefs. It encrypts at file level with AES-GCM, rather than AES-XTS at block level, and the size is not fixed at creation.

Tangentially related is my open source project on an authenticated encryption filesystem: https://github.com/netheril96/securefs.

I wrote a filesystem in userspace (FUSE) with authenticated authentication for self use (https://github.com/netheril96/securefs). It got a modest number of stars now, but few from HN (mostly from Reddit, judging by how upvoted the post is).

If anyone is interested in client side encryption, checkout my project securefs (https://github.com/netheril96/securefs). It is better than TrueCrypt as its encryption is randomized and authenticated, hence more secure, and it does not require preallocation of storage space.

Time to promote my project `securefs` again (https://github.com/netheril96/securefs). Written specifically to address that XTS issue.

I wrote a competing implementation (I wasn't aware of gocryptfs before) at https://github.com/netheril96/securefs. Many points are similar: for example, a random file ID, 4KiB blocks encrypted with AES-GCM mixed with the ID and block number, sparse file support. The major difference is * The directory structure. GoCryptFS goes the easy route of encrypting filenames, while mine has its own directory implementation independent of the underlying filesystem. Mine is theoretically safer as it never reuses the IV, but the safety margin is probably so slim that it doesn't matter in practice. * In addition to authenticating each blocks individually, mine has a HMAC that authenticates the concatenation of all block level IVs and GHASHs. It prevents the attack where replacing a block with its past revision does not show up as invalid.