PDA

View Full Version : Performance of encryption software



Nico Schuyt
07-12-08, 04:35 AM
I did some testing with Flycryptor and Truecrypt.
Flycryptor is very easy to use but seems to be a lot slower than Truecrypt.
For example: copying 616MB text files took:
32 seconds without encryption
35 seconds inside of a Truecrypt container
45 seconds in a Fycryptor container
I'm not completely sure about the significance (though the results were the
same on repetition): a search on a text phrase in 6,000 e-mails (OE) took
about as long in Flycryptor as without encryption.

Has anyone experience with both programs and/or a general advice what
program is to be preferred?

--
Thanks in advance, Nico

jc
07-12-08, 09:53 AM
Nico Schuyt wrote:
> I did some testing with Flycryptor and Truecrypt.
> Flycryptor is very easy to use but seems to be a lot slower than Truecrypt.
> For example: copying 616MB text files took:
> 32 seconds without encryption
> 35 seconds inside of a Truecrypt container
> 45 seconds in a Fycryptor container
> I'm not completely sure about the significance (though the results were the
> same on repetition): a search on a text phrase in 6,000 e-mails (OE) took
> about as long in Flycryptor as without encryption.
>
> Has anyone experience with both programs and/or a general advice what
> program is to be preferred?
>

FlyCryptor is propriatory while TrueCrypt is open source. TrueCrypt code
is available for inspection, particularly the algorithms it uses for
encryption. FlyCryptor has to be taken at face value.


jc

Nico Schuyt
07-12-08, 12:32 PM
jc wrote:
> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>> I did some testing with Flycryptor and Truecrypt.
>> Flycryptor is very easy to use but seems to be a lot slower than
>> Truecrypt. For example: copying 616MB text files took:
>> 32 seconds without encryption
>> 35 seconds inside of a Truecrypt container
>> 45 seconds in a Fycryptor container
>> I'm not completely sure about the significance (though the results
>> were the same on repetition): a search on a text phrase in 6,000
>> e-mails (OE) took about as long in Flycryptor as without encryption.
>>
>> Has anyone experience with both programs and/or a general advice what
>> program is to be preferred?

> FlyCryptor is propriatory while TrueCrypt is open source. TrueCrypt
> code is available for inspection, particularly the algorithms it uses
> for encryption. FlyCryptor has to be taken at face value.

That makes sense. Advantage of the FlyCryptor however is its easy handling
(for a price of $100 however)
Thanks for your reaction!

--
Nico

jc
07-12-08, 03:57 PM
Nico Schuyt wrote:
> jc wrote:
>> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>>> I did some testing with Flycryptor and Truecrypt.
>>> Flycryptor is very easy to use but seems to be a lot slower than
>>> Truecrypt. For example: copying 616MB text files took:
>>> 32 seconds without encryption
>>> 35 seconds inside of a Truecrypt container
>>> 45 seconds in a Fycryptor container
>>> I'm not completely sure about the significance (though the results
>>> were the same on repetition): a search on a text phrase in 6,000
>>> e-mails (OE) took about as long in Flycryptor as without encryption.
>>>
>>> Has anyone experience with both programs and/or a general advice what
>>> program is to be preferred?
>
>> FlyCryptor is propriatory while TrueCrypt is open source. TrueCrypt
>> code is available for inspection, particularly the algorithms it uses
>> for encryption. FlyCryptor has to be taken at face value.
>
> That makes sense. Advantage of the FlyCryptor however is its easy handling
> (for a price of $100 however)
> Thanks for your reaction!
>

If a nice UI is more important than security and scrutiny go ahead and
put your money down.


jc

Nico Schuyt
07-13-08, 05:59 AM
jc wrote:
> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>> jc wrote:
>>> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>>>> I did some testing with Flycryptor and Truecrypt.
>>>> .....
>>>> Has anyone experience with both programs and/or a general advice
>>>> what program is to be preferred?

>>> FlyCryptor is propriatory while TrueCrypt is open source. TrueCrypt
>>> code is available for inspection, particularly the algorithms it
>>> uses for encryption. FlyCryptor has to be taken at face value.
>>
>> That makes sense. Advantage of the FlyCryptor however is its easy
>> handling (for a price of $100 however)
>> Thanks for your reaction!

> If a nice UI is more important than security and scrutiny go ahead and
> put your money down.

A combination of quality and easy handling is even better :-)
It took me hours to find out how to work with Tuecrypt on PC, USB drive and
external HDD. That costs money too.

--
Nico