So what do I use now if I don't use Truecrypt?
September 21, 2014 9:15 AM   Subscribe

I used to use Truecrypt to encrypt little enclosures so I wouldn't have to worry about my files so much when I, say, put them on a USB stick or backed them up to the cloud. There was a whole... thing with Truecrypt and now it's hard to say if I should use it anymore. Is there another program that's going to work well for this purpose?

Some factors:

-I am on Windows 8.1, but not Pro, so I don't have Bitlocker. I could upgrade but I'd rather not spend the money if possible.

-I am not interested in encrypting whole drives, just little virtual drives I can keep my files in.

-Ease of use is a bonus, I don't need maximum features. This is just to avoid identity thieves and script kiddies, not the NSA.

Actually looking at the last one above, maybe I should just track down an old version of Truecrypt? Or is there something better now?

I saw this question but it doesn't have much information on alternatives, have any developed?
posted by selfnoise to Computers & Internet (7 answers total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
Cyphershed is a fork of Truecrypt, subject of this Slashdot post.
posted by Sophont at 10:50 AM on September 21, 2014

Just keep using your version of TrueCrypt, AFAIK no serious issues have been found yet.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:48 AM on September 21, 2014

This repository has the latest version for all available OSs and both binaries and signatures are identical to the files downloaded from the official site before having been taken down.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2014

On Windows I use AxCrypt. This works at the individual file level, but depending on the number of protected files that you actually interact with, it has its advantages. I encrypt everything in my documents folder with it, which can be done from a Windows Explorer context menu by selecting all files. If you open a couple a protected files a day, you type a couple of passwords a day. My goal is the same as yours--to make files unviewable by mere mortals. If there's a master safe cracker after me, I have bigger problems right?

Advantages: There is no single file that could fail and take out a bunch of files, as with TrueCrypt. No mounting and dismounting. (How protected is a TrueCrypt volume that you end up leaving mounted all the time, really?)

Disadvantages: More password typing. Not useful for interacting with encrypted files constantly, like say browsing a directory of photos. Filenames can still be seen.
posted by sylvanshine at 2:12 PM on September 21, 2014

Best answer: Using 7-zip to make an encrypted zip file works.
.zip files don't encrypt filenames though, so if you want that encrypted too use .7z.

If you wanna be stealthy -and- backed up you can use CryptSync to automatically encrypt files (and zip them to save space!) before you upload them to the cloud.
posted by spec at 3:03 PM on September 21, 2014 [1 favorite]

How protected is a TrueCrypt volume that you end up leaving mounted all the time, really?

That's not what disk encryption is supposed to protect against, if an attacker can access your computer at will (either locally or remotely via an exploit) while you're operating it no encryption will ever save you; if you can see the files, so can the attacker.

TrueCrypt, AxCrypt, etc are useful in case of physical theft of a powered off computer or storage device and only when the attacker has no other choice but to brute force the password. But if they look in the unencrypted disk space and find the keyfile, or leaked key information in the swap file, or can easily guess your password, then you're still screwed.
posted by Bangaioh at 3:18 PM on September 21, 2014

Response by poster: Thanks everyone! I think Cryptsync is something that I didn't even know I wanted, but now I have it set up and encrypted files on the cloud. Nice.
posted by selfnoise at 7:26 PM on September 21, 2014

« Older To lawyer or not to lawyer?   |   Help me track my mother's computer usage Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.