Kryptor VS ubuntu-touch

Bit new to this, but would it be possible to have Peazip as a frontend that supports Xchacha20? I believe it could interface with something like Kryptor here: https://www.kryptor.co.uk/

i am currently packaging https://github.com/samuel-lucas6/Kryptor. i already tried building it from source, but i got an error and nobody was able to help me. so i am now resorting to just packaging the supplied blob.

And I have yet to write my own file encryption tool… At least others are doing it for me.

{ lib, fetchFromGitHub, fetchzip, stdenvNoCC, dotnetCorePackages, buildDotnetPackage}: let repo = fetchzip { url = "https://github.com/samuel-lucas6/Kryptor/archive/refs/tags/v4.0.1.zip"; sha256 = "sha256-SK4TZg/T6SFimF83iwv3dqTkxDuhk7D7GSWg+oybrDg="; }; in buildDotnetPackage rec { pname = "kryptor"; version = "4.0.1"; src = "${repo}/src"; }

I think depends what be needed, but the main thing is full system encryption. I don't need encrypt single & multiple files, if they are stored on encrypted drive. If I must move them, I can use USB drive encrypted by VeraCrypt. If be needed, I can encrypt all files using Age or Kryptor. Usually Kryptor is recommended more often than Age as I saw, because it's "easier" but I think if something is older could be better, because was more time to detecting errors. 12k vs 1k starts on GitHub is really huge differences in favor of the Age.

I want to ask about algorithms used in that tools: Picocrypt, Kryptor and Hat. I think which one tools should I chose and when. With my knowledge, theoretically the best option are Picocrypt and Hat, depends on situation.

I tested a few encryption open-source software programs: Picocrypt, hat.sh and Kryptor. I combine it all together, and my TXT file looks now that: hello.pcv.enc.pcv.kryptor.

This article is a pretty garbage.

> There is no need to use Git source code management if you don't need it. Git's a complicated tool, which is why Linus Torvalds gave it the name: it's British English for a hostile or uncooperative person. 7-Zip has a single author, Igor Pavlov, and if he doesn't want to use Git, The Reg FOSS desk doesn't blame him.

Who cares if a media desk doesn't know how to use Git. How is that even relevant to the story.

Nobody has said that he should use git, but it is a good idea to use some kind of version control so that changes to the code can be easily tracked, based on change. Places like Github, Gitlab provide plenty of documents.

Using version control also encourages others to contribute. 7-Zip in itself is very old C++ code that I doubt anyone has really looked at too closely in a long time.

Further it often gets recommended as an "encryption tool" when there are better modern alternatives such as Picocrypt https://github.com/HACKERALERT/Picocrypt or Kryptor https://www.kryptor.co.uk.

They later mention that bullshit node-ipc pulled, yet they don't see how version control provides accountability.

Amusing.

You might want to look at Kryptor for something minimal that is actually usable in a reasonable way.

Ubuntu Touch, for example, does not support Full Disk Encryption, when Android has moved on from Full Disk Encryption to File-Based Encryption. Android utilises SELinux in enforcing mode for Mandatory Access Control even for root/superuser processes. Sandboxing with Flatpak cannot compare to the OS-level app sandboxing done on Android and iOS. Permission management on Flatpak is good, but still not as advanced as Android or iOS. On phones, (real) Linux is quite easily outclassed in security when compared to Android.

For those seeking a change https://ubports.com/

It still uses many of the Android components via Halium on traditional Android devices which end up unpatched and for devices not with a mainline kernel use outdated vendor kernels. https://github.com/ubports/ubuntu-touch/issues/1566

I'd suggest taking a look at contributing to existing efforts like UBPorts

Ubuntu Touch doesn't even have encryption and ships kernels with many known security issues: https://github.com/ubports/ubuntu-touch/issues/178

Fyi, the project isn't dead, it is just not developed by Canonical anymore: https://ubports.com/

There is already Ubport https://ubports.com/ project that is supporting Ubuntu for smartphones and guides you to compile debian with all the phone functionalities. Some parts of modem abstraction layer on the Linux (below radio Interface layer) will still be not openesource and i would say it won't be easy to get this source.