For those who resist AxCrypt 2.x

[Jack C.]

I resisted  AxCrypt 2.x for years due to its changes from 1.x but finally “got with the program” today. I think the main issue with 2.x is that you’re locked into a single password and you’d better not lose it, plus the email requirement, though it says your password isn’t technically online. It rightly spooks some users to have the Internet even partly involved in their personal files. There’s too much hacking and too much uncertainty about things only programmers can know in depth, especially if software isn’t open source.

If you set up 2.x in pure offline mode (requires minor trick) your ability to change your master password may be grayed-out, which threw me a bit  It’s definitely not as intuitive as 1.x but I can tell it’s superior. Just proceed with caution when you initialize 2.x, and beware of auto-conversion of 1.x files, though it will open them with their original passwords. You must also pay to change your inactivity timeout from “never.” I’d like to see options for at least 120 minutes vs. 60 minutes (not used on a public computer).

My solution for keeping simpler functionality was to install the “really old” standalone version, AxCrypt2Go, which I’ll use with people who have no interest in software and still have 1.x (integrated or not) on their PCs. AxCrypt2Go has a single-window GUI that makes different passwords on the fly, which is important for users who snub fancier software, like the elderly. They also don’t care if it’s got the latest and greatest encryption; they’ll email detailed family histories unencrypted.

I still hope 2.x will eventually have a custom passwords feature (vs. just shared keys). The program is quite slick and I can’t find anything better. It just requires a higher level of intelligence to use 2.x than 1.x.

[Jack C.]

P.S. For those who fear losing their 1.x files w/custom passwords, just don’t check “Auto Upgrade 1.x Files” (which will convert them to 2.x as they are used). That was one of my other big concerns, and it lets you ease into those conversions.

Well done, Svante.

[SvanteSpectator]

Hello Jack!

Thank you for making the effort, and informing both us and other users of your experiences. Feedback like yours is extremely important for us when deciding priorities going forward.

We do have a plan for “password based” key sharing, i.e. alternate passwords very similar to having different passwords for different files.

However, just to be transparent, we are trying to make AxCrypt really great and to do so we need resources. This means that most, if not all, future improvements will require a paid subscription of some form.

I am happy you’re happy with AxCrypt 2 and found a way to manage the transition. I’m not as happy to hear that you find AxCrypt 2 harder to use than AxCrypt 1 – the intention has been the opposite, so we’ll have to improve that! Thank you once again.

[Jack C.]

I don’t find it harder to use once it’s set up, but it requires more a more sophisticated user than v1.x. I set a very strong main password which would be arduous to type, so I use KeePass to store it for signing in.

Two quirks I’ve noticed so far:

1. The “Change Password” option is grayed out for unknown reasons at different times, whether I’ve checked “Always Offline” or not. I’m using the Premium free demo mode.
2. There was also a case where a (4th-level nested folder) .7z file was unresponsive to being encrypted until I moved it to the Windows 10 Desktop, but I tested a similar file at the same level ~30 min. later and it encrypted fine. I hadn’t changed any known settings in the interim and have “Never” for Inactivity Sign Out.

I have more to learn by reading the docs, or maybe you could cover those two items here, or refer to other threads about them.

[SvanteSpectator]

Hi Jack,

Yes, well, the setup is slightly more complicated in that you need to register an email, get the email, verify the email and then set a password that passes some pretty strict complexity requirements.

The main reason for the extended process was that it was *too* easy to get started with AxCrypt 1, type a password twice and encrypt some stuff. Then either because the password was mistyped, or because it was simply not properly noted, the data was lost.

We have almost none of that now with AxCrypt 2. The sign in requirement and the stored hash on the server, makes it really hard for example to mistype a password, encrypt a file, and then weeks or days later realize it won’t open.

The use of a single password also reduces the confusion about which password was used for a particular file.

All in all, most of the changes related to sign up and sign in are actually based on experiences from users losing data in AxCrypt 1. Some of them are of course also related to the fact that we’re trying to make an honest living off it so yes, it’s monetized ;-).

If you find the quirks to be reproducible or frequent, do send a bug report to us!

Once again, thanks!

[Jack C.]

After 24-hours with 2.x, my main concern is still the dependency of being “online” vs. the autonomy of 1.x, plus a feeling that files aren’t processed as independent entities like before (granted, even 1.x is above most people’s level of knowledge).

I found that I need to log off, then on again to ensure that “Change Password” isn’t grayed-out.

https://forum.axcrypt.net/search_gcse/?q=change+password (a number of folks were confused by the process)

It’s the thing to be in The Cloud these days but it makes a lot of people nervous, if for no other reason than the Internet isn’t always reliable. Tough call for those who don’t need a super-slick program but want to stay current.

[Jack C.]

Update after 5 months of testing 2.0:

I have to say I still like 1.7 better for its intuitive “acting directly on the file(s)” feeling and no need for any online interface, initially or otherwise. The 2.0 interface feels detached from its actions, like an automatic transmission, and I like the manual feel without as much slickness.

I’m now switching back and waiting for a potential 1.7-like 2.0 successor. This is not to say 2.0 isn’t as good as competitors, just a preference on my part.

[Author]

Posts