| 1 |
On Friday, July 8 at 22:50 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by |
| 4 |
> reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the |
| 5 |
> in-kernel ecryptfs these days? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you are using works |
| 8 |
for you why not stick with it. I still prefer encfs, although I have |
| 9 |
admittedly never tried ecryptfs, for the following reasons: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* It's FUSE, completely userspace and requires no kernel support |
| 12 |
(other than FUSE) and no special privileges to mount (other than |
| 13 |
fusermount). |
| 14 |
* You can have multiple layers of encryption on on source |
| 15 |
directory. E.g. two different passwords can give you two |
| 16 |
different views of the filesystem. |
| 17 |
* In the documentation at least, it says when you upgrade ecryptfs |
| 18 |
you should first copy the files from the old ecryptfs to an |
| 19 |
unencrypted filesystem, and then copy it to the new ecryptfs. |
| 20 |
That seems like something some people won't want to do. |
Archives