Looking for encryption app

[666]

I'm looking for a new file encryption app to replace ShellCrypt. Preferably something that works like ShellCrypt, looks like ShellCrypt, but locks down my files beter than ShellCrypt does.

Features that my new encryption app MUST have:

- run on Windows XP
- encryption of individual files no matter where they are (no cryptainer-like encrypted virtual drives)
- shell integration
- an "encrypt-and-hide" option that encrypts the file and gives it a random name
- user defined extension exclusion list ("do not encrypt .ini, .exe, etc")
- better lock than ShellCrypts flimsy 56-bit blowfish

AxCrypt, BitCrypt, Cryptainer, ShellCrypt, and TrueCrypt don't have all the features I want. Does anyone know an app that does it all?

[SYS 64738]

{QUOTE-> - run on Windows XP
- encryption of individual files no matter where they are (no cryptainer-like encrypted virtual drives)
- shell integration
- an "encrypt-and-hide" option that encrypts the file and gives it a random name
- user defined extension exclusion list ("do not encrypt .ini, .exe, etc")
- better lock than ShellCrypts flimsy 56-bit blowfish <-QUOTE}


You may give a try to Fine-Crypt http://www.crypto-systems.com/ or Cryptosuite http://www.ghostsecurity.com/cryptosuite/ , although the don't have they file extension exclusion feature as far as i'm informed.

[666]

Thanx for the links.

Unfortunately, both apps lack:

{QUOTE-> - an "encrypt-and-hide" option that encrypts the file and gives it a random name <-QUOTE}

To which I should have added: "...and restores the original name upon decryption."

A file name reveals quite a lot. Manual renaming is a lot of work, keeping track of all the original names is even worse.

Keep the sugestions flowing. I know there must be an app out there with all the features I want.

[SYS 64738]

You're welcome.

hm, i see....Zero Footprint Crypt (freeware!) http://www.baroufasoft.net/zerofootprint1.htm creates random file names and restores the original filename after decryption again. Encryption algorithms are Blowfish, Twofish, 3DES, RC4, Serpent and Rijndael.

However, i didn't find the file type exclusion feature, but i have played only a little around with this program.

[666]

Thanx again. Zero Footprint Crypt is a bit closer to what I want.

But there are two things...

- Right-clicking and encrypting/decrypting a file (or set of files) launches a full-blown explorer-type Zero Footprint window, which you'll have to close manually after you're done encrypting or decrypting. I'd like my encryption app to ask for my password, do its job, and go away quietly. The less clicks the better.

- Generating a random file name is either on or off in Zero Footprint. I like ShellCrypts method of letting me choose to hide the file name or not without having to go into the settings screen. Like this:

http://i17.tinypic.com/4cib50p.jpg

Almost there. With so many encryption apps out there, there must be one that has it all.

[n8chavez]

I think Blowfish Advanced CS is just what you want. See it here (http://www.lassekolb.info/bfacs.htm). I believe it has everything you want, just take the time and play around with all the settings. Some of them are presented to you when you encrypt a file. Good luck.

[666]

Thanx! That's an excellent program!


Is there a way to make the context menu a little less crowded? I'd like to keep the "encrypt" and "decrypt" context menu items and remove the others:

http://i14.tinypic.com/2wf1xxw.jpg

[Syn]

{QUOTE-> Thanx! That's an excellent program!


Is there a way to make the context menu a little less crowded? I'd like to keep the "encrypt" and "decrypt" context menu items and remove the others:

http://i14.tinypic.com/2wf1xxw.jpg <-QUOTE}
You could try and remove them manually from the registry. I think they are stored here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\*\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\bfaCSMenu

Tell me if it works out for you. ;)

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> You could try and remove them manually from the registry. I think they are stored here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\*\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\bfaCSMenu

Tell me if it works out for you. ;) <-QUOTE}
That will not work. If you delete the entries you do not want you will simply be left with duplicate entries for the context menue items that are still present.

[666]

{QUOTE-> You could try and remove them manually from the registry. I think they are stored here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\*\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\bfaCSMenu

Tell me if it works out for you. ;) <-QUOTE}


Almost...

Blowfish ACS filled the empty spaces in the context menu by repeating the remaining entries:

http://i14.tinypic.com/300rv3t.jpg

Of course, the original commands are hidden under those extra "Decrypt" entries, so clicking the wrong "Decrypt" option starts the file wipe tool...

[666]

{QUOTE-> If you delete the entries you do not want you will simply be left with duplicate entries for the context menue items that are still present. <-QUOTE}

Is there another way to get rid of 'em?

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Is there another way to get rid of 'em? <-QUOTE}
Not that I can see. Blowfish Advanced CS is no longer in developement so I think you are stuck with it's current limitations, if indeed you call that a limitation. Why don't you keep the entries? They can be very useful, especially the 'wipe' entry. It will make sure files are securely erased.

[Syn]

{QUOTE-> Not that I can see. Blowfish Advanced CS is no longer in developement so I think you are stuck with it's current limitations, if indeed you call that a limitation. Why don't you keep the entries? They can be very useful, especially the 'wipe' entry. It will make sure files are securely erased. <-QUOTE}
Has anyone managed to test the wipe facility? For example, compared to the popular Eraser program?

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Has anyone managed to test the wipe facility? For example, compared to the popular Eraser program? <-QUOTE}
I haven't yet. I plan to in the future. Although even if it was good and proved that files were unrecoverable once wiped I think I'd still use Eraser, as I do now. I also very much like sdelete.

[666]

{QUOTE-> Why don't you keep the entries? <-QUOTE}

Because I like my context menus uncluttered. Things that I rarely (or never) use can be buried in the main program interface.

Unfortunately the unwanted extras are hardcoded in bfacslib.dll (ctxmenu.cpp in the uncompiled source), so I'll have to rebuild it to edit the context menu.

[Syn]

{QUOTE-> Because I like my context menus uncluttered. Things that I rarely (or never) use can be buried in the main program interface.

Unfortunately the unwanted extras are hardcoded in bfacslib.dll (ctxmenu.cpp in the uncompiled source), so I'll have to rebuild it to edit the context menu. <-QUOTE}
I've already tried hex-editing an uncompiled version of bfacslib.dll with no luck, however I have come across some unusual phrases present in the dll file.

One of them: hellooo nurse!
Another: whoa nelly, says Sherman, the Shark

Any idea on those? :blink:

[666]

The menu items are in ctxmenu.cpp, http://www.hotpixel.net/bfacs257src.zip

Maybe someone with a Delphi/C++/ZIP/UPX/HHC setup could give it a shot?

[Joeythedude]

My guess is that if you keep the key named decyrpt then you can delete the others.

[InfinityAz]

PKWare is offering a free version of SecureZIP. This is a compression and encryption program.

You can get it here (http://www.securezip.com/).

You can get info about it here (http://www.pkware.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=82).

[InfinityAz]

I like and use Blowfish Advanced CS. You can use the non-install version and carry/use it from a flash drive. Plus, it offers the ability to work with a file (i.e., double click the file to unencrypt it, make changes, save the file, and it is encrypted with your changes automatically.

[Genady Prishnikov]

Reading through this thread, I just had a thought I wanted to share...

The quality of encryption is vastly more important than "features" such as shell integration and what shows up on right-click and what doesn't. If you take your security and privacy seriously, these things are of little importance.

Truecrypt and AxCrypt are open source and can do everything you NEED to protect your documents. There may be things you WANT but if the security is questionable - or unknown - it is worthless.

[Syn]

{QUOTE-> Reading through this thread, I just had a thought I wanted to share...

The quality of encryption is vastly more important than "features" such as shell integration and what shows up on right-click and what doesn't. If you take your security and privacy seriously, these things are of little importance.

Truecrypt and AxCrypt are open source and can do everything you NEED to protect your documents. There may be things you WANT but if the security is questionable - or unknown - it is worthless. <-QUOTE}
We all take our security and privacy seriously, we just like a little bit of functionality to make it more usable and productive. Also, the security is neither questionable or unknown in this case. :)

[Genady Prishnikov]

{QUOTE-> We all take our security and privacy seriously, we just like a little bit of functionality to make it more usable and productive. Also, the security is neither questionable or unknown in this case. :) <-QUOTE}

If it's a commercial, closed-source application - the security is indeed questionable and unknown.

[InfinityAz]

{QUOTE-> If it's a commercial, closed-source application - the security is indeed questionable and unknown. <-QUOTE}

So, you're saying the reverse is true:

Because it's an open-source application and many people can examine the code, test the algorithms, etc., the security is known and not questioned (i.e., 100% secure).

See this information here (http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/open-source-security.html) about open-source versus closed-source software and security.

[Genady Prishnikov]

{QUOTE-> So, you're saying the reverse is true:

Because it's an open-source application and many people can examine the code, test the algorithms, etc., the security is known and not questioned (i.e., 100% secure).

See this information here (http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/open-source-security.html) about open-source versus closed-source software and security. <-QUOTE}

I read the article in the link. I saw it as confirmation of my view. Is open source perfect? Obviously not (if nobody is looking at the code). Is it infinitely better than closed-source? Of course! With closed-source, we know NOBODY is looking at the code. A good UI does not a good encryption app make. In fact, it's usually just the opposite; the old, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull&%#"

[InfinityAz]

{QUOTE-> I read the article in the link. I saw it as confirmation of my view. Is open source perfect? Obviously not (if nobody is looking at the code). Is it infinitely better than closed-source? Of course! With closed-source, we know NOBODY is looking at the code. A good UI does not a good encryption app make. In fact, it's usually just the opposite; the old, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull&%#" <-QUOTE}

Genady,

I agree with you and in general feel better/more secure with open-source software. The only problem is how do we know who, if anyone, is checking the code and what their qualifications are to do so. Also, I do believe that closed-source software can be as good and as secure as open-source. This is mainly based on logic:

If a security software company produces a product that is eventually determined to not work, is garbage, etc., their business will be ruined. It is in their best interest to produce a good and effective product that is secure and works.

The other problem I see with cryptographic-related software is that we generally have to take other people's word that it is secure and works as promised. Unfortunately, there is no standardized testing (such as av-comparatives for AVs).

Take care and looking forward to your thoughts.

[666]

{QUOTE-> The quality of encryption is vastly more important than "features" such as shell integration and what shows up on right-click and what doesn't. If you take your security and privacy seriously, these things are of little importance.

Truecrypt and AxCrypt are open source... <-QUOTE}

...and so is Blowfish ACS, which has a better choice of algorithms than AxCrypt and doesn't make you move your files into a virtual drive like Truecrypt.

Either way, encryption only works if you use it, so usability is just as important as the key length or whether the user interface that runs in front of the Blowfish or AES algorithm is open source or not. Even the best encryption method in the world is useless if it's hidden behind some clumsy cluttered interface that makes you skip encrypting your files because nobody will steal your laptop in those five tiny little minutes that you go for a coffee.

The willingness to take risks increases proportionally to the amount of work it takes to avoid those risks.