Forums Community AxCrypt 2.0 and 1.7

This topic contains 122 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Vagner Dantas 10 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 123 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3141 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Hello MerleOne,

    Sorry, no, we have not yet updated the iOS app to the new level. This will be done in the coming months. The existing iOS app (which is also pulled from the app store, so it can’t be downloaded currently) cannot decrypt documents encrypted with AxCrypt 2.

    Regards,

    Svante

    #3180 Reply

    MAV

    Does anyone know a good alternative to AxCrypt as loved it before this irritating program that is version 2, just want to download and start encrypting a file with any password that i chose that day. I don’t want you to have my email or use activate code. What have you done to this once great product! Why did you change something that just worked. If its not broke don’t fix it?

    I wish you the best of luck in your future fan base support/downloads…

    #3181 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Hello,

    I’m sorry you don’t like the new version, but I’ll just hope that you’ll give it a longer try. It’s different, but it’s really convenient!

    If you still don’t like it, just stay with the old. It’s freely available and will be so for the forseeable future.

    Svante

    #3263 Reply

    Bill

    I uninstalled the new version 2.1.1394.0 and desperately want to reinstall my prior version 1.whatever.it.was. The old website appears to have a link to download outdated versions but it simply leads me to a page which will download the same version 2 that I just uninstalled.  Is it possible to find the outdated download here or anywhere else?

    #3264 Reply

    Rollmops

    Sadly I don’t like version 2.Its irritating to go online, for an account just to use the free version. I uninstalled it.

    Why spend Money for an 256Bit AES only encryption if you can get it for free ?

    There are free programs out there that offer multiple encryption algorithm.

     

    #3272 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Bill,

    I’m sorry you did not like version 2, but you might want to persist a bit. It really does have it’s advantages, even if it’s different! But if you insist of course you can get the previous version. Just go to http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/Downloads.aspx and download version 1.7.x (3156 is the current build).

    LegacyDownload

    #3274 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Hello Rollmops,

    You only need to go online the very, very first time you use AxCrypt 2 on a PC. Thereafter there’s no such requirement.

    The Premium price is not at all just for 256-bit encryption, it’s for much more! Including support, key sharing (work with encrypted documents with others), a password manager, secured folders and soon also mobile apps will be included in Premium. See http://www.axcrypt.net/pricing/  for the feature comparison.

    Indeed there are free programs offering multiple encryption algorithms, but that’s part of the thing with AxCrypt. We make those choices for you, and in just about every case we do it better or as good as the user thus not annoying the user with a choice of algorithms.

    Actually, if you like, you can plugin different algorithms to AxCrypt 2 if you’re C# savvy.

    #3315 Reply

    RngFarAway

    Yep,I’ll just go back to 1.7,it was simple and it worked well.I personally have no interest in all the sharing/password managing features that 2.0 has,and also really dislike the whole ‘sing in’ model that it uses.

    #3327 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Thanks for the feedback, RngFarAway!

    If you wish to reconsider, do keep an eye on our blog, where I’ll be addressing some common questions about the design decisions around Version 2.

    #3344 Reply

    Sputnik

    Hi everybody !

    I am among the people who deeply regret the abandon of the development of AxCrypt v1.

    In fact, if v2 would possess an offline password which we would be the only one to know, and if there was still the possibility to create auto-extractible executables, it would not be a problem for me and for many people I think to work with this new version.

    But the makers of AxCrypt have done a lot of work these past years for the free encryption market by doing a top nutch encryption software, all this without asking any money from the users. I think that they have the right, at this moment, to begin to make a little money for all their good work. Don’t forget however that there is still a free version of AxCrypt, which is still very usable, even without the auto-extractible executable creation feature.

    From another point of view, it seems that some people think that the last version of AxCrypt (v 1.7.3156) is not good anymore because of the launching of v2. This is not true : you can still work with this version, as long as Windows will be able to handle it. If ever comes a time when that would not be anymore the case, you would still have the possibility to open all your crypted files with the last version of AxCrypt and decide at this moment what will be your next encryption software.

    Concerning the auto-extractible executables, sending such an exe file or sending a regular encrypted file is exactly the same if the person to which you are sending this file has AxCrypt installed on his/her computer. If this person doesn’t have AxCrypt installed on his/her computer, yes it is a problem, but only as long as this personn doesn’t install AxCrypt on his/her computer.

    Maybe that Svante may confirm what I say here or say more clearly what are the real issues of the continued use of AxCrypt v1.

    Thank you for your listening.

    #3346 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Thank you Sputnik for you reasoned comments.

    I am very much listening to the debate of V1 vs. V2, and I will work as well as I can to improve the experience for existing V1 users. I’ve already done quite a bit, but more can be done.

    It surprises me a little bit about the ‘self decrypting’ files function. In my experience it just doesn’t work in practice. Does anyone here actually have a scenario where there’s any benefit or it actually works? Just about 100% of current e-mail servers and clients will block executables. I really think the standalone version is more than a substitute for the self decrypting feature. That being said, if there’s a real demand and it actually works, it’s not that hard to implement using the standalone version.

    The offline functionality will probably be implemented in one way or another, but I really like the sign in metaphor where we associated the password with an identifier, even if offline. This reduces the risk of losing data due to mistyped passwords, and that’s a really good thing I think.

    Version 1.7.3156 will indeed be useful for a long time, and please remember – effectively it’s been left on it’s own for about 2,5 years already.

    Svante

    #3356 Reply

    Sputnik

    Hi Svante !

    In fact, my last comment was made a little bit on the model of Plato’s dialogs in which Plato was debating with himself on a certain subject through different characters that he was staging. One character had a certain opinion about something and another character had an opposite opinion on the same subject or was questionning the affirmations of the other character. That was helpful in order to get the truth out of a given subject…

    I was only trying to say to the users who are not confortable with the v2 that the situation is not that bad because it is not because this new version has been launched that the old version is by the fact no good anymore. Really, this old version, as it is now, will certainly be good for another couple of years and their crypted files will never be at risk if ever this old version stop working for a reason or another in a couple of years because they will still be decryptable with the new version. So, if they like the v1 as it is now, they may continue to use it for a couple of years, the code of this version is as secure now as it was before the introduction of the new version.

    I was trying also to say to these same users that the auto-extractable file functionality is not as necessary as they think because they may send regular crypted files or archives which will be as good as the auto-extractable file with the only condition that the receiver has to open up the crypted file with AxCrypt. And as you said, the standalone version of AxCrypt which is available on the download page of your website will do the job adequatly.

    The users we are talking about right now could easily use the v2 and replace the auto-extractible files this way : they just have to crypt what they want to send and put it in an archive with the standalone version of AxCrypt accompanied with an eventual “ReadMe” file indicating to the receiver how to open the crypted item with the standalone version of AxCrypt. To do this very fast, it could be possible to create a folder already containing the standalone version and the ReadMe file, serving as a basic model that just need to be copied and in which there just remains to put the crypted item inside and create and archive with this folder.

    But yes, it is not as simple as the auto-extractable file functionality. These users must however understand that the process to put the crypted item with the standalone version and the ReadMe file in an archive has just to be done in the sole cases they dont know if the receiver possesses AxCrypt or not. For the people with which they frequently communicate there is no problem because the receiver just have to keep an installed version or a standalone version of AxCrypt, as he wishes.

    However, the standalone version of AxCrypt should eventually also offer the possibility to work with an offline password so that a person who receives a crypted file with a standalone version of AxCrypt will not be eventually obliged to open up an online account with AxCrypt just in order to open a single crypted file…

    But to be frank, I personally doesn’t need the auto-extractible functionality and has never used it.

    Concerning my final opinion about the new free version of AxCrypt, I am still waiting that the Premium trial comes to an end because it is only at this moment that I will see clearly what really is this free version…

    Thank you.

    #3357 Reply

    Sputnik

    Hi Svante !

    Just after sending my last comment I realized that the situation is maybe not as simple as I told…

    If I understand well the way the things are now for someone who wishes to use only the free version of AxCrypt, it seems that the crypted file which would be send to someone would have the personal “sign in ID” of the sender as the password, which means that the sender will certainly have to indicate his personal ID to the receiver in order that this one opens up the crypted file. If this is the case, this is a direct threat to the security of your personal ID.

    It seems that in such a case the sender should have the ability to crypt the item he wishes to send with a password which would be different from his personal ID.

    If the things are not as this now, it seems that you cannot send a crypted file to someone else right now otherwise than by using the online service of the Premium version.

    Is it really like this ? What is the real situation about this ?

    Thank you.

    #3390 Reply

    Svante
    Keymaster

    Hello Sputnik,

    I think you are understanding it right. You need to be a Premium user in order to key share with others. You can be using the Free version to open a key shared files.

    So the sharing person needs Premium, the sharee does not.

    Currently, we do not support adding other passwords to a file, but it’s certainly technically feasible. The reason we still might not implement this is because we don’t think it’s a good way to work, and we’re hoping that if you have the need to share encrypted files with others, you’ll find the convenience of the Key Sharing feature to be well worth the small cost of Premium.

    #3391 Reply

    Sputnik

    Hi Svante !

    Things are now becoming a little bit more clear.

    As I now understand it, with the v2 you probably aimed at two main goals : to be able to keep for this new version the same name of “AxCrypt”, which is broadly known, by the fact you still keep a free version of it under the GNU General Public License and at the same time to be able to launch a “rentalware” version of it which still uses the same known name (which saves a lot on publicity costs) but for which you may ask for money because of the online key sharing service, which certainly doesn’t fall under the GNU General Public type of License.

    I have nothing against that, it’s a fair practice.

    With this new free version of AxCrypt however, long time users of AxCrypt looses the capacity to send crypted files to whoever they want at no cost and, as you confirmed, 128 bits encryption is largely enough secure. So, these users will probably, for a big part of them, prefer to stay with v1 and that will be my case.

    For those who absolutely wants to use a 256 bits encryption and to send at no cost crypted files to someone, there are other very good free crypting softwares that are able to do the job, maybe not as easily at it is with AxCrypt (v1 or v2) but for free compared to AxCrypt v2.

    I know it is not an easy situation for you and I think that you will probably have to find some very good ideas in order to bring the majority of long time users of AxCrypt to the free version of AxCrypt v2, which is something certainly highly desirable for you in the long term.

    Thank you and Good luck.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 123 total)
Reply To: AxCrypt 2.0 and 1.7
Your information: