Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How To Replace FileVault With EncFS

Posted by timothy on from the for-secretive-tweakers dept.

agoston.horvath writes "I've written a HOWTO on replacing Mac OS X's built-in encryption (FileVault) with the well-known FUSE-based EncFS. It worked well for me, and most importantly: it is a lot handier than what Apple has put together. This is especially useful if you are using a backup solution like Time Machine. Includes Whys, Why Nots, and step-by-step instructions."

1 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Question by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are some flaws in FileVault that might make me prefer EncFS?

    I've only been thinking of activating FileVault lately and my only other experience has been with ELI in FBSD.

    The "flaws" in FileVault (really, just limitations, but whatever), are that they aren't backed up via Time Machine while you're logged in, and space isn't freed up until you log out.

    He states that it takes a long time to log out, but that's not true as of Snow Leopard. Sparsebundles recover space very quickly, and you can cancel the logout clean up process without worry.

    As for, why would you prefer EncFS? You wouldn't. It actually does work reliably. FTA:

    There are known problems with EncFS, as it only support basic POSIX operations (no locking, extended attributes, etc...). This works well for simple file storage or multiplatform applications, like MacPorts, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc..., but encrypting your whole homedir is known not to work.

    In other words, not only can it not replace FileVault, but it can't even be used for the things a normal Mac user might want to encrypt (Mail folder, iPhoto library, etc.).