- #Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both manuals#
- #Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both software#
- #Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both windows#
That is no small “dialect” difference, but a strong grammatical error, all too common in people who should know better The error was “You will *loose* access to your encrypted files”. Others, well… and in the latter, I have to agree on the evidence seen here not Boxcryptor.
#Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both manuals#
We’ve all seen the translated-from-Chinese gobbledegook masquerading as manuals of electronic products.īut do these goodies work? Some do fantastically. But aren’t we being a bit too pedantic/precious over words when what’s important is the strength of the drawbridge to our digital castles. I mean, Queen’s English would spell it “re-emphasised”.
#Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both windows#
Windows Secrets is so obviously US based/biassed in its articles and when looking at contributors’ locations. Time for a visit to the office across the hall? You’d immediately get the impression that if he had not paid any attemntion to these things in university, he could well have glossed over, or worse, read inaccurately, the legal documents affecting, possibly, your well being and security. Your point can be re-emphasized by, say, one’s visiting a lawyer who demonstrates bad spelling or grammar. You are quite correct, and the type of spelling error leads me to believe that this is an english speaking, American based company. That’s what a trustworthy person does by default. I’m not saying that they can’t be trusted but they need to go out of their way to show that they can be trusted. I mean, they aren’t charging you anything for the service they have to make their money somehow. They were sloppy with this screen, which makes me wonder what else they are sloppy with, including perhaps the possibility that they have a back door built in somewhere. If they are really trustworthy, then one clue about that is that they will make sure that you believe that you can trust them. I think this is a bit of paranoia in a world that really doesn’t care much about the individual…they care about the big businesses and will go after them.įor something as important as encryption, you need to be able to trust the people doing the encryption. And if criminals are really serious, they do worse things. And if I am mistaken, and you are, then it is much easier to break into a business and steal the computer hardware than try to hack online accounts. But sorry Fred…you just don’t have enough money, influence or affect enough of the world economy to be worth hacking. If you are a large multinational corp with billions of dollars in transfer, ok. The question is, do you have anything valuable enough for someone to put the costly resources and time into it? On top of that, if there is any information SO important that you need to double encrypt it, you would be a complete fool to put it online anyway. Realistically, anyone who can hack a Skydrive account will be able to decrypt a Boxcryptor cypher. The encrypted files cannot be opened by Office 365 online apps, cannot be downloaded and used by other people unless they know your encryption password, thereby defeating the purpose of encrypting in the first place. Sorry, but this defeats the major purpose for cloud based storage, especially Skydrive and Google Drive…to use cloud based office apps to work collaboratively with others. I’m always wary of that – too many cooks can spoil the soup.
#Boxcryptor 2.0 and classic both software#
Not only do I see a lot of caveats in the instructions dealing with Windows itself – certificate conflicts, etc – but BoxCryptor also requires smooth interoperability with a third party’s software – SkyDrive, DropBox, etc. I have a DropBox folder for my ‘casual’ data – cat gifs, essential tools and drivers, etc – and a SpiderOak folder for my ‘serious’ data – banking, taxes, legal etc.
The advantage of SpiderOak is that it’s one simple piece of software, like DropBox. Only you can read it, using your key that you control. SpiderOak is one of the few that encrypts your data before it leaves your computer – so that what they receive at their end, and store on their servers, is gibberish. Obviously they have procedures and policies in place, but should those policies and procedures fail or be circumvented by an employee, you’re exposed. BoxCryptor look interesting – will definitely look into it.īut a much simpler solution would be to use a ‘zero-knowledge’ cloud-based storage provider – such as SpiderOak.ĭropbox and SkyDrive et all encrypt the tunnel by which your data is uploaded to them, but once it gets out of the pipe at their end, it is clear to read.
0 kommentar(er)
