gocryptfs VS encfs

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.

Directory encryption tools typically use either a userspace library (doesn't need sudo, performance overhead due to FUSE), or the Linux kernel's dm-crypt / LUKS features (needs sudo, better performance, very widely used). Tomb uses the kernel stuff. Quixand uses userspace stuff (specifically, EncFS).

Upstream development seems to have moved to github but there is no release or significant development in the last four years, and there are a bunch of innocuous-sounded pull requests unresolved.

The only encryption I'm aware of that supports network file systems is encfs. https://github.com/vgough/encfs

Install EncFS in Tails (yes, that security warning is scary)

Then someone said development has started again. Checking just now, last commit on https://github.com/vgough/encfs is May 2020, while https://github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs is 4 hours ago.

EncFS, CryFS and GocryptFS

You could look at EncFS (or eCryptFS) to check whether they do what you want with a YFS dataset exported via NFS.