November 4, 2016 at 03:46 #4552
If I encrypt a folder are all the files in all subfolders at all levels also encrypted?
What is the difference if I right click/encrypt a folder or if I put it into the folder section on the dashboard?
What is the difference if I right click a folder and select “encrypt” in the free and Premium version?November 4, 2016 at 07:40 #4553
No, right now we don’t support recursive encryption of folders. See https://bitbucket.org/axantum/axcrypt-net/issues/191/add-option-for-recursive-operation .
The difference between encrypting the files in a folder with right-click and using the secured folder feature is that the latter will monitor the folder, and allow you to encrypt all unencrypted files there with a single click (or when you sign out or exit AxCrypt).
The difference between encrypting with an active Premium subscription, or without with AxCrypt Free is that with Premium it encrypts using AES-256 and with Free AES-128.November 4, 2016 at 22:41 #4558
Thank you for your response.
Is the lack of recursive encryption of folders a technical problem? It seems that it would be extremely helpful to many, myself included.November 10, 2016 at 13:06 #4587
No, it’s not a technical problem, it’s a usability problem. We’ve had too many users making mistakes with the very powerful function of recursive folder encryption (i.e. Encrypt from c:\ for example…).
We’re considering ways to make the function more failsafe, while still useful.November 10, 2016 at 17:17 #4611
I appreciate the potential problems but to exclude a hugely convenient function as a result of caution is , in my opinion, too drastic. Safeguards can be included, some as simple as a warning message [or several], more steps to accept function if the folders are on “C:” and a default “off” with the option to enable, just to name a few. Encryption by nature is a risk, i.e. lose the password. I feel this added function has far more up sides than downsides.
Don’t neuter the app to make it foolproof. Impossible to do and I do not feel that should be the primary goal; efficiency and workability should be at the top of the list along side security. User beware, with any encryption app.
Option: A different version with this built in. Now the user has options. May be overkill when this function can be included as an option.
I hope you reconsider. Thanks.
I hope you reconsider.November 11, 2016 at 08:37 #4613
I mostly agree, it’s just that I’ve been on the end of trying to explain to user that he just irrevocably destroyed both all of his files and his computer OS installation (encrypted too much + lost password). In that situation, it’s tough to have to say “well it’s at your own risk, and you made the mistake”.
So, while we can’t make it foolproof, we need to make it almost… So, all of your ideas are under consideration, and we will implement it.
The current plan is to move all options to a single page of advanced options, with some extra precautions against changing them – i.e. a warning dialog and explicit user consent by typing your password or something like that. We don’t really like options at all, but some are unavoidable and this is probably one of them.
So, we won’t need to reconsider, we just have to get to it. Right now mobile apps are taking a lot of our available development time. We’ll get there.November 11, 2016 at 21:09 #4614
Again, thank you for your attention and reply.
1st, my rant:
Encryption creates strong security only if it cannot be violated. Security and access are inversely proportional. Increase one, the other decreases, and inversely. You are paid [hopefully] to provide a dependable and NARROWEST portal possible. Why would you need to apologize for providing what is requested, an app that provides a high level of security? Strong security [encryption], loss of the portal [password], and subsequent loss of access to data/information/files are interminably entangled and an inherent risk, as in many security operations. It is not the responsibility of the encryption app or by extension, the developer, to untangle this web or diminish these risks.
Also, passwords can be securely “stored” by the user with a little imagination and/or effort.
OK, I feel better now.
An aside; convenience is secondary, which you have nicely addressed via your account approach.
1) An AxCrypt lite, with a “reduced level of security disclaimer” with backdoors, retrievable passwords. With a per
2) A password retrieval or reset service, for a fee.
3) With “System” or critical OS folders and files
3a) Limit encryption on these folders and files.
3b) When encrypting these folders/files include a blizzard of warnings, “Are you sure?”, “This is dangerous.”,
“Don’t blame me.” and/or disclaimers.
4) Include general disclaimers on installation:
4a) “Use encryption at your own risk. If you cannot provide the correct password, you will not have access to
encrypted folders and/or files.”
4b) “We cannot retrieve your encrypted folders and/or files, Don’t even ask.”
4c) “Encrypting folders and files required to boot or run your operating system or any other program is
highly discouraged and can prevent access to your OS or programs.”
” Do not activate recursive encryption when encrypting folders and/or files on “C:” drive.”
5) When activating the recursive option, make them acknowledge [check off], “I accept this inherent risk”.
6) Require an extra “accept risk” click for all recursive encryption. [Not my personal favorite, cumbersome.]
I applaud you for considering this function as it is sorely missing in encryption software. Though it is usually available in drive/virtual drive/disk encryption programs, these cannot be used in many circumstances.
This would make a major improvement in an already really good program.
Hurry. [grin]November 12, 2016 at 16:08 #4615
Hi again skipro (like the tag by the way, I read it as ski-pro ;-),
All your points are essentially valid, and I certainly agree that it’s kind of the point of encryption – if you don’t know the password you can’t decrypt. But… This is where reality makes itself known, and some users are just not careful enough, and while it’s not our formal responsibility to protect these users from themselves, the fact is a lot of our users are attracted by the simple operation – and thus also have pretty vague ideas about what’s really going on.
Still, glad you feel better for getting the rant off your chest, and as I said – in princple I agree.
We’ll get to this function soon enough I hope, you’re not the only one asking!