There are a bit too many reports of file corruption for my taste. I’m asking myself how safe is it to update quickly to a new version?
Do you think the test coverage is high enough to be sure that everything works? The test folder on GitHub did not look that big but I might be wrong because I do not know the project internally.
This is one of my concerns as well. I come from Boxcryptor.
Cryptomator has lots of updates I noticed and (several drivers to use it like Fuse-T, MacFuse, WinFSP), while BC had only a couple per year. Also with BC you had your folders and files unchanged (not encrypted) locally, but that “folder and files” were encrypted when you send it to the cloud. This way I always had the original files unencrypted, which was safe for me and good to backup. While Cryptomator files are always encrypted and you don’t have unencrypted originals. So if there’s something wrong with your Cryptomator Vault, all your files are gone (even if you made that backup).
In my opinion it makes no sense to encrypt files locally, while you always need to unlock the vault to access them.
Cryptomator desktop is designed to work with as many storage provider as possible. That means that the encryption is done no matter which storage provider you use. And this is why the files are encrypted local and then handled by the storage provider app for upload/sync.
This does not take away or answers the concerns mnlfdf has.
The only thing you can do is to always have a non-encrypted copy of your data somewhere stored locally.
The way cryptomator works does not leave you another option.