cryfs VS gocryptfs

I know that cryfs[1] is resilient to at least the first of these, and possibly the second as well. I don't know if cryfs allows to modify the base directory while the filesystem is online, if it does then it might already be a better solution for syncthing, if you only care about Linux.

On the flip side syncthing could incorporate cryfs's base directory format instead of their home-grown one.

[1] https://www.cryfs.org/

When I tried cryfs mounting via file system, cryfs told me there was no vault at my vault directory. It says specifically, "Could not find base directory. Do you want to create it?"

you have a couple options. if you’re using ext4, fscrypt might be your best bet. if not, a FUSE-based encryption option is probably your only option. ecryptfs, gocryptfs and encfs are good, but i personally prefer cryfs. it doesn’t have an archwiki page, but can be installed from the repos and instructions for use can be found on its webpage

Cryfs encryption for future Cloud Storage = https://www.cryfs.org/

It sounds like cryfs might be helpful for this. It stores an encrypted directory in the cloud but mounts the decrypted contents locally on your hard drive so you can work with them. I'm still looking into it myself but it appears to have been designed to let people use cloud storage without ever revealing the contents to the provider.

See https://github.com/cryfs/cryfs/issues/335

CryFS - Intended to replace eCryptfs and fscrypt (which you can also look at if CryFS doesn't work for you) and add improvements. Unlike LUKS and veracrypt, you don't have to allocate the space in advance; as you add more data it just has more files containing the encrypted data. It is also intended to work with cloud sync things like Dropbox. So I expect you should also be able to store it in an NFS or samba share and then mount it so the encryption happens locally and the server never sees the unencrypted data. If you use KDE, the "vaults" program provides a good UI. Details at https://www.cryfs.org/

Instead of large containers, perhaps use something like CryFS so the uploads are not as large? See https://www.cryfs.org/

Exemplo: https://www.cryfs.org/

I'm looking to improve my documents syncing setup. Currently I'm using owncloud, but that seems overkill for just files syncing and it requires maintenance, so I gave Syncthing a look. The "Untrusted device encryption" was not appealing to me because I'm not convinced by the security aspects yet, and also because it is in beta for now. I used gocryptfs [1] in the past and was quite happy with it, so I'm planning to use it on top of Syncthing to have files synced encrypted. As far as I have read this setup (Syncthing + gocryptfs) seems to be used by several people and has already been discussed by gocryptfs' author, who recommended a `-sharedstorage` flag for such use case [2]. Reading [3] I think gocryptfs is more suited for files syncing than cryfs. I'm aware that the metadata (file size, structure, …) of my files are not encrypted but that's a compromise I'm ready to make.

I would be happy to hear about opinions about this approach.

[1] https://nuetzlich.net/gocryptfs/

[2] https://github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/issues/549#issuecomment...

[3] https://www.cryfs.org/comparison

If you want selective encryption, rather than full drive encryption, to be less conspicuous: gocryptfs (Linux)/cppcryptfs (Windows).

https://github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs might be a solution. I dont use it, tried to for some backups but ran into some issues unrelated to the solution itself but with my backup solution.

JungleDisk was backup software I used ~2008 that allowed mounting S3. They were bought by Rackspace and the product wasn't updated. Seems to be called/part of Cyberfortress now.

Later I used Panic's Transmit Disk but they removed the feature.

Recently I'd been looking at s3fs-fuse to use with gocryptfs but haven't actually installed it yet!

https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse

https://github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs

I think the fundamental issue seem to maybe be the changing inode numbers with things like gocryptfs. Git annex needs those to be static as far as I can tell.

Veracrypt is stil a fine option but if you want to have regular backups, it's not that great imo. Say you want to automatically backup your files to some cloud without having to trust their promises of privacy, you could use something like gocryptfs. It creates a folder of your files but in encrypted form. You then copy / sync that folder using any backup program.

A comparison gocryptfs would be appreciated, since this software, at first glance, has no differentiating features from it.

https://nuetzlich.net/gocryptfs/

There is a pretty nice project gocryptfs that instead of encrypting container, it substitute on the fly virtual filesystem that encrypts content and file objects. So, if you would share to cloud that virtual filesystem, you don't sacrifice a byte on your system.