4 out of 5 with 1 ratings

EncFS Reviews

Free. Open source. Cross platform. Local and or cloud storage.

about EncFS · · Helpful Not helpful 1 Helpful Report as spam

I love EncFS. It is owned and supported by a friendly community. The code is available for public review, so more secure than proprietary options.

As for the security concerns, EncFS version 1.7 is probably safe as long as the adversary only gets one copy of the ciphertext and nothing more. EncFS is not safe if the adversary has the opportunity to see two or more snapshots of the ciphertext at different times.

EncFS version 1.8 and 1.9.1 fixed many of those security concerns. Future versions will hopefull fix all of them.

The version 2.0 was announce. Here is the related message from the author: "I've started cleaning up in order to try and provide a better base for a version 2, but whether EncFS flowers again depends upon community interest. In order to make it easier for anyone to contribute, it is moving a new home on Github. So if you're interested in EncFS, please dive in!" Source at https://github.com/vgough/encfs

[Edited by Francewhoa, April 14]


Yeah EncFS is great.

I will compare EncFS to cryptomator and boxcryptor.
boxcryptor being close source (it's 1.0 is indeed encfs...), I wont trust them fully.

cryptomator 's version up to 1.3.3 use java and it's slow as hell.
And being using webDAV it CANNOT handle 4GB+ file.
v1.4.0+ will use FUSE... let's see.
ctmt is also open source, however.

combined all concerns,
I turn to encfs.
free, open source.
should be secure as so far no news about leakage/breach and it's improving from v1.7 to 1.9.1
And it's fast, stable (same fast and stable as boxcryptor 2.0, but BC 2.0 no longer is encfs).

so as a mainly windows user with google drive and onedrive,
among encfs, ctmt and bc1/2,

now I have joined encfs4win by jetwhiz.