Comparison with CryFS


Has anyone done a comparison of this project with

CryFS seems to have benefits in that it doesn’t reveal file sizes which Cryptomator does unfortunately.

Just seeing if any advantages which Crytompator has, before deciding on one?

Indeed, looks similar.
The main reasons for me where Cryptomator gets the points are:

  1. stable (CryFS write on their website that the program is still in beta phase.)
  2. Windows support
  3. Mobile apps to access the vault. (with WebDAV support for really all storage providers, like my ISP)

This is not available with CryFS
(I know there’s a windows client, but it is marked a highly experimental. Nothing for my data)

I’ve been using cryfs for many months now and has been just as stable as cryptomator for me.

Crytptomator doesn’t seem to let me use any command line arguments so can’t mount at boot time on linux either which is a negative.

If you test out cryfs the lack of file sizes really gives confidence of another layer of data thats kept hidden compared to disclosing the same.

There is a command line interface project for Cryptomator. Watch out, it’s stated as beta.

We ditched file size obfuscation a while back as it was too big of an issue for non-local files (as required for the mobile apps). Whether you consider the file fragmentation a good feature depends vastly on your security targets. If you value privacy higher than availability and integrity, this certainly is a point for CryFS. With Cryptomator, we strive for the best of all three primary security targets, which does lead to compromises. But if you don’t have any issues during sync so far and prefer a CLI solution anyway, then I would recommend to stay with CryFS. This is, for the most part, personal taste.

That said, I personally dislike snakeoil statements on their website like “the security of CryFS has been proven”. While I don’t see a problem with the cryptography, I prefer to keep some distance from phrases used by all those “military grade security” bogus companies.

1 Like