It creates .Trash folder in root dir of your BoxCryptor volume. So your junk is encrypted as well, don't worry ;)
It creates .Trash folder in root dir of your BoxCryptor volume. So your junk is encrypted as well, don't worry ;)
Ok. Let me get this right. So, I have to spend 48 dollars a year in order to have file name encryption? I don't get it. Is the filename encryption service running through your infrastructure? If it is, this a big security risk. Oh, I am being facetious.
Why would you force people into a ridiculous subscription model when it cannot be justified? If you make a feature I want or offer support I need, then I will pay, but don't force it. You are not going to be successful that way.
I'd also like to voice my support for the "make BoxCryptor Classic open source". Since you are not maintaining it anymore, I also expect you are not planning on making any money from it anymore. Give the community a chance to maintain a great piece of software!
Hoping someone can help me with this. I've followed the directions earlier in the thread about installing the previous version and creating the shortcuts to 10.11.
When I try to run the program, I get “Boxcryptor Classic” is damaged and can’t be opened. You should move it to the Trash.". Anyone run into this issue?
Did you run the application before you changed it? If you did and are still running into problems, follow the steps I mentioned before and disable Gatekeeper, run the application, then reenable Gatekeeper.
Correct, I saw this after doing a full system reinstall..allowed all apps from anywhere to run, ran it, then turned the protection back on.
Hi mikes - thanks for your reply!
lb543 - here is how I got to have my Boxcryptor Classic to work
- I uninstalled previous versions of Boxcryptor using AppCleaner I found on MacUpdate
- I then installed the version Trebuin is talking about in his posts (thanks Trebuin)
- I followed his instructions (note in his post there are two places you need make changes to)
- I rebooted my system, and mounted my encrypted volumes as usual
- don't forget to check in the 'Enable Trash' or you won't be able to delete files
I also installed boxcryptor classic on a brand new machine (running El Capitan), and added an additional step to my installation.
- I disabled the 'system integrity protection' prior to the installation of my apps, and reenabled it after all apps were installed and configured.
File name encryption in 2.x works in the similar way as in 1.x. But the issue is it uses chinese unicode characters and it seems it is not that fast as ASCII character. It is 12 times slower and for me it was the main issue why I couldn't switch to 2.x release. That's why even BoxCryptor support advises against using this feature, as it is unusable for typical scenarios. Hopefully they will do something about it as otherwise they won't make business in this field.
If anyone needs a step-by-step guide about how to install / configure / use EncFS on OSX, I've written it here https://www.andreagrandi.it/2015/10/11/how-to-configure-encfs-on-osx-10-10-yosemite/
It's tested on Yosemite but the same instructions should work on El Capitan too.
I've been a long time BC Classic user as well, but recently converted to BC 2. I'd like to +1 on mikehawkes recommendation to mount/unmount volumes (I know I'm using the wrong verbiage here since volumes no longer exist in the Classic sense).
Like many of you, I also had heartburn from buying a product then having Secomba pull the rug and go to a subscription model especially considering I only use BC for personal use, but strongly want the filename encryption. BC2 has also made it harder to share volumes with my family (we had the unlimited family licenses with BC Classic).
Saying that, I'm extremely happy with my decision to move to BC 2. I like going to one area to access all my secured and unsecured cloud documents rather than having multiple finder/explorer windows to traverse through and it is easy to differentiate between what is and is not encrypted.
Nothing in technology is eternal. Many open-source projects have died either abruptly or slowly due to lack of participation. Even if support for Win10 and OS X 10.11 are relatively simple fixes, where is the line drawn in the sand? I do think Secomba has been above board with communicating the transition from Classic to 2 and Classic's lack of support for Win 10 and OS X 10.11. It hasn't been "in your face"; I've had to hunt for some of the information, but they have been above board.
I'd recommend trying BC 2's free trial before discarding 2 right away. It took me 2 years to make the move, and I'm glad I did. I'm also glad I waited instead of jumping into the deep end when BC 2 was first introduced. I do think the product, even though it's not like-for-like with Classic is ready. Certain workflows may have to transition, but your workflow probably changed when you became a Classic user in the first place.
You can run both side by side as I did. One recommendation I would make to those who have large GB/TBs secured is to migrate your Classic documents to a Secured Local drive first then place it back into your cloud provider. The process of encrypting and uploading a large swatch of files may unnecessarily upload yet-to-be-encrypted files to your cloud provider in the clear. This would ensure all uploads are encrypted in the BC 2 formate.
Just one person's thoughts.
sec1 - you have to be very patient type of guy ;) I've been testing 2.x for almost 2 weeks now and it is simply unusable if file name encryption is enabled. It is too slow if you have more complex directory structure. You feel this irritating delay when you go through directories with many files. Fortunately BoxCryptor Classic is based on EncFS and native EncFS works just fine on El Capitan (see the andreagardi instructions above), so I will stick to it for a while and then switch to SpiderOak or Tresorit. I'm surprised I discovered these services so late. It is something like Dropbox + Boxcryptor, but for one price and security/encryption is built into it from the very beginning. Neither SpiderOak nor Tresorit has access to your data. They have apps for Windows, Mac OS X, Android, iOS. I'm testing it right now and it seems I will make transition very fast ;)
misiektoja, I have SO and looked at Tresorit. I think SO is great. Only problem I have is the files are unencrypted locally on your computer. This was the biggest BC Classic benefit for me... the ability to manually mount/unmount certain volumes. SO is certainly not as easy to use as Dropbox even though they've greatly improved, but then again, no other provider is. To me, and as I've said, they've improved greatly, SO is still more backup oriented than sync.
What BC 2 has forced me to do is re-evaluate what files go to which cloud provider: files that I need immediate sync to share across multiple devices go to Dropbox, large office type files that I use predominantly on one machine or files that are effectively read only go to MS that I want to access, extra large secured backup files go to SO.
On top of each provider, I use BC 2 as an added layer of security/obfuscation for files I want to secure. Certainly not saying my method is perfect, but it is working for me.
I haven't (yet) experienced any of the performance issues you mention with my usage of BC 2 with the filename encryption turned on so I can't really comment on that. BC Classic, I believe, had major shortcomings with complex directly structures when using filename encryption. At least with BC 2, the use of Asian unicode characters has helped alleviate that issue when running into MS directory char limit.
Well, this is sad. I naively installed El Capitan this morning only to discover this mess after the fact. So I am in the process of restoring my system from backup as we speak.
Going forward, I refuse to use the new BoxCryptor - there is a reason I was still using Classic, mind you. So the Pandora's box is open and I am officially looking for a replacement. You lost me forever BoxCryptor, like SplashID lost me when they "upgraded" to their new version that did not work. I found mSecure in the process and I am convinced I will find a suitable replacement to BoxCryptor that will be even better than the original!
It is what it is - but I will not forgive the day lost chasing my tail trying to get back to a working system. This is not a way to treat customers. You're dead to me.
Wow. Can I get paid for all the time I wasted since I upgraded to El Capitan last night? :\
I figured I'd give 2.x a try. Back when it came out it wasn't an option because I was also using Linux on my laptop and needed encFS to work with this. No longer an issue. However 2.x has been nothing but trouble. Prompting for me to encrypt when copying multiple folders from Classic, only to find out that all the files were read-only (the most recent version doesn't fix that.) Tried to delete the files: it claims they are not there in the UI. "rm" in Terminal is slightly more specific: "Permission Denied."
Also somehow my entire DropBox folder got wiped out, even though I had only been working with my OneDrive folder.
Whatever is up 2.x's butt, I don't know, but it seems to have some issues. So I'm currently using the older version of Classic. Don't know what I'm going to do. I like BoxCryptor's support for several platforms, but I'm not particularly fond of the way 2.x does things (if at least it did them well, that would be a start...)
@Robert: Sadly, you've just lost me as a customer - encryption products are based on trust. Your decision to drop support for El Capitain might make sense in the short term money-wise, on the trust side you've just started going into the red. Why should I enter into a subscription deal with you now? Leaving aside the more than slight unease of depending on a subscription to be able to use a product fully, you've just told me: oh, we reserve the right to do as we please.
Sad to see BoxCryptor go this way, it was a great product and one that one could full-heartedly recommend. No more.
To be clear, they are well within their right to end-of-life Boxcryptor Classic. I'm not debating that, and I get it.
But it still sucks!
My chief complaints on the replacement software are twofold: lack of Linux support (deal-breaker right there), and also the subscription model. I don't mind paying for a sub when one of two conditions are satisfied: it is reasonably priced, and/or when there is a server / service component. As an example, lastpass costs $12 a year. Office 365 Personal can often be had on sale for $60 a year, but comes with MS Office AND 1TB of One Drive storage. Both make Boxctyptor look way too expensive by comparison.
ported encfs works well. all you need is xcode + macports then you install encfs and finally create a script which is automatically fired during logon. you wont need boxcryptor anymore!!
Anyone having difficulty mounting volumes in macOS Sierra?
Nope, the trick found for El Capitan doesn't work anymore too !
I'm fed up as Boxcryptor Classic completely meet my expectations ....
Can someone please post a trick to have the Classic application work on Sierra?
This is really critical please.
We have created an "unofficial" update for Boxcryptor Classic which can be used to migrate your encrypted data even if you already updated to macOS 10.12 Sierra. It shoud really be only used to decrypt any existing data in order to migrate to a future-proof encryption solution (preferably our new Boxcryptor versions, of course). You can download it here:
Thank you for the package but I need a version that can write on Sierra just like the trick applied for the ElCapitan.
I have paid for both versions classic and new but the classic has some features the new Boxcryptor does not have, so please issue a Read/Write version for the Sierra so that we are able to work again, this is unfair.
BoxCryptor classic works also Sierassa. Same modifications as in El capita. In addition Volumes RW rights.
I have applied the El Capital procedure and I am unable to mount any volume. Can you please provide a step by step walk-through that made it work for you on Sierra.
Thanks a lot.
BoxCryptor.app El Capitan = 10.11 rename Sierra = 10.12
Volumes Read only change Read & Write step
Sorry I just saw your post. The dropbox link does not show anything. Can you please post again?
Can you please mention what are the steps for Read & Write steps?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Now, the link works again.
Thanks a lot!!!
You must log in to post.