Safe – EncFS-compatible encrypted filesystem for Windows and Mac

http://www.getsafe.org/about

by aston • 12 years ago

50 19 12 years ago

miles• 12 years ago

Here's the announcement[1] from a few days ago, linked from Safe's Twitter feed[2]:

Wanted to announce the release of my native Windows/MacOSX port of EncFS. It's called Safe, it's free and you can get it here: http://www.getsafe.org/

Safe forms an ecosystem with similar tools like TrueCrypt. It's not for hardcore cryptographic applications, you can't choose specific ciphers and it makes no effort to ensure plausible deniability.

Safe's main goal is to make file system encryption easy to use and accessible to more people. It's for every day encryption i.e. a simple way to ensure reasonably private stuff is actually stored privately. Peace of mind if your laptop or external hard gets stolen, or someone hacks into your backup service. As a tool, it empowers more people to make their own cryptography decisions instead of having to rely on and trust proprietary solutions.

Safe isn't without limitations. Think of it like the physical safe you keep in your home: burglars will have a hard time cracking it but given enough resources it's not strictly impenetrable. If you need a steel alloy vault, TrueCrypt might be closer to what you're looking for but it's not without its own set of limitations as well.

Personally I store all my tax, legal, and medical documents in Safe. That's just me, Safe is GPL and comes with no warranty :)

[1] http://pastebin.com/xxQhEv0q

[2] https://twitter.com/safe_app/statuses/457281727761620992

MichaelGG3• 12 years ago

I don't get it, and the GetSafe page doesn't explain this: Why would I use this instead of TrueCrypt? Oddly the page takes the time to explain how it doesn't use FUSE but uses WebDAV, yet doesn't tell me why I'd want something that leaks metadata, requires disabling hibernation, and provides less security, but still requires a password.

Also just thinking out loud, but if the files are accessed over an HTTP port on localhost, then there's the risk a client may cache files to an unencrypted place. Using full disk encryption eliminates all these kinds of risks and isn't any harder (it's just a password, like safe).

rian4• 12 years ago

Hi! Author of Safe here.

This is explained here: http://www.getsafe.org/about#howissafedifferentfromtruecrypt. Here is a quick summary:

1. You can use your existing EncFS encrypted data on Mac/Windows.

2. 1:1 File encryption is much faster on network storage you don't control, like NFS, SMB, Drobo, Space Monkey, Dropbox, Google Drive. Most of their drivers/protocols are file-based. TrueCrypt is block-based, i.e. all data is stored as a single potentially giant file. This affects the performance of algorithms focused on caching and deduplication.

3. I designed Safe to be much easier than TrueCrypt to use. Try making a new encrypted disk with TrueCrypt, then do the same process with Safe and you'll see what I mean. TrueCrypt is very intimidating to set up for people who don't intimately understand how cryptography works. Safe just chooses the most secure defaults.

As for your second concern about caching. I can guarantee that no data is cached to the local disk unencrypted when using Safe. Don't just take my word for it, verify yourself. See http://www.getsafe.org/about#system_changes_more_info

Safe is not a competitor to TrueCrypt. They are different tools for different situations. I use both depending on the nature of the data I'm keeping private. Safe is another tool in this ecosystem and the main goal is to help more people take control of how their data is stored and transmitted and hopefully bootstrap mainstream digital privacy awareness.

MichaelGG3• 12 years ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7588369

tptacek: " Safe is a wrapper around EncFS, which (a) potentially leaks a lot of metadata and (b) is a weird combination of CBC and CFB. I'd feel better about Truecrypt. reply "

Followed by a bit of discussion and a link to an apparently unfavourable audit.

sweis• 12 years ago

Why does Safe use the Botan crypto library?

Botan has a single contributor who says "[Botan] has never undergone an impartial third-party security review, and thus it is entirely possible/probable that a number of exploitable flaws remain in the source."

I don't know of any other project that depends on it.

FiloSottile2• 12 years ago

I'd like to link to a audit of EncFS, the system that Safe is a wrapper for: https://defuse.ca/audits/encfs.htm

It highlights in my opinion a old and not rigorous implementation and design.

I'd not feel safe using it even if the developers of Safe did a great job choosing defaults.

mhurron4• 12 years ago

It all depends on what you need. EncFS appears to be enough for what I need it for, encrypting files that I want to be a little more private than not at all on cloud storage. I personally wouldn't put sensitive information through it, but then again, I wouldn't put my sensitive information on a cloud provider either.

On top of that, what other per-file cross platform encryption options are there?

FiloSottile2• 12 years ago

None, but consider that you can use Truecrypt over Dropbox. It's smart enough to upload only changed segments.

dteoh• 12 years ago

On top of that, what other per-file cross platform encryption options are there?

Boxcryptor is an option, but it is not open source.

suthakamal• 12 years ago

Not sure why Safe forcibly disables hibernation on Mac's with FileVault2: it encrypts the hibernated (is that a word) version of memory stored to disk.

kakashi19• 12 years ago

i guess this won't work on iphone right?

robfreudenreich• 12 years ago

You should be able to use it with any mobile encryption app which is compatible to EncFS, e.g. Boxcryptor Classic on Android and iOS (more info: https://www.boxcryptor.com/en/classic)

Safe – EncFS-compatible encrypted filesystem for Windows and Mac

Related Stories