[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Sorry guys! I really like the discussion, but not the implied/expressed personal stuff, so I did some insenstive hacking to the posts removing and editing some parts.

I think your posts still contain the same information and opinions,  just with focus on the subject matter.

I can’t keep doing this though, so if it keeps getting out of hand again, I’ll have to shut it down.

I’m trying to be impartial three ways here, but if you think I can handle this situation better – please drop me an email via support@axcrypt.net . Just refer to me, and it’ll get to me. Don’t post meta discussions about this discussion here.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hello Annalisa,

A screenshot would indeed help a lot, but the most likely reason is described here: https://forum.axcrypt.net/support/faq/#lavasoft-crash .

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Guys! Respect, please, or I’ll have to start moderate this. Please? Go for the issue, not the person.

The discussion is interesting, and I actually think all parties have something to learn here. But keep a nice tone, and stick to talking about the problem, not individual persons!

While the information is hard to really understand from Microsoft, here are are some facts about the term “device encryption”:

– It’s sometimes used as a generic term, i.e. “On Windows 8.1 Pro, device encryption can be done with BitLocker”.

– It’s sometimes used as a specific feature name, i.e. “Windows 8.1 RT includes Device Encryption (a stripped down version of BitLocker)”.

– BitLocker on desktop PC’s is not enabled by default. It can be in Enterprise environments for example.

– Device Encryption is enabled by default on certain devices, including mobile and desktop PC’s provided a number of critera are met, which includes a TPM that supports connected stand-by, it’s a clean install, the manufacturer has chosen not to disable it etc.

– Device Encryption, if supported and enabled, will not actually protect your data until you sign in with an online Microsoft Account or a domain account, with administrative privileges. Before then, the drives are encrypted, but the volume master key itself is not protected, making it available to anyone using the computer with a clear key. This is equivalent to BitLocker suspended state. After the administrative sign in, a recovery key is generated and uploaded to the Microsoft Account and the TPM is configured to not release the volume master key using the clear key. At this point, the drive is protected.

So, to sum up the findings on underlying hard drive encryption on Windows devices:

While many new tablets and PC’s will have it enabled and activated by default, it’s a good idea to check and verify since it’s so transparent you can’t really tell if it’s on or not unless you check.

It’s a good idea to ensure it is enabled, as it complements for example AxCrypt in many ways.

Thanks for providing incentive to write up this summary. It’s far from a clear-cut case, and available information is easy to misinterpret, to a large degree because of confusing naming practices by Microsoft.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hello magic,

Whish we could have everything free for everyone… But the fact of the matter is that for AxCrypt to keep existing, we need revenue.

The previous iOS version is a good example of the problem. It was made as  cooperative project with another developer. I provided the core code and they did the iOS part as an educational project for their staff. Great while it lasted.

Then the company said, “Thanks, that was fun, but we can’t and won’t maintain it.”. At that time it became abandonware, which was first removed from the App Store and then iOS 9 broke it compatibility-wise.

We want AxCrypt to be available on all relevant platforms, Windows, iOS, Android, OS X and hopefully Linux. Maybe it’s just me, but I just can’t do that by myself while at the same time having a day job to pay the rent and also have a life. I’ve not been able to find enough other volunteers.

As you say, the app is basic. In order to change that, we need to spend many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours to keep developing it.

That’s what the revenue is for. To develop AxCrypt. At this point every cent goes right back into the product. If you like, see the subscription fee as your contribution to the project, because that’s what it is.

The next step is bringing AxCrypt to the Mac, and we’ll be adding functions to the desktop version as well as the mobile apps.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hey, Dale and Brian and everyone else!

This is your friendly lead developer of AxCrypt and sometimes moderator. We’d like to keep this a nice and helpful part of the Internet.

I think your discussion is definititely helpful and full of valid views and input from all sides, but sometimes frustration over not feeling one or the other getting the point across shows in the language used. I’m stepping in now, not because this thread has derailed, but to keep it from doing so.

Let’s all respect each others opinions, and we can all learn from a discussion like this.

I’ll refrain from adding any comments on the actual issue – I think I’ve expressed them earlier and elsewhere.

Just one thing on this kind of discussion; just because I or the team has expressed an opinion at one time or another, doesn’t mean we can’t change, tweak or even reverse our position on an issue. Which already has happened on this issue, to a large degree because of discussions like this one.

So, keep it coming from all sides, but let’s all stay nice people! We all have a common goal, to protect our information confidentiality and personal integrity in various ways, where AxCrypt is hopefully one piece of the puzzle.

Thanks all to contributing here! We want this to be a community where we all can learn and contribute, and we as the team behind AxCrypt want to keep adapting and improving AxCrypt as result of the discussions here.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hello Doug,

First of all – if you have a backup, you have a backup. If you could open them before, you can open them now (at least by definition with the same version you hade before). AxCrypt 2 does open all AxCrypt 1 files – we do not have an reports to the contrary. If you can’t open them now, you couldn’t opent them before either – simply because you’re not using the right password.

What may confuse you when you revert back to AxCrypt 1 is that files that you have successfully opened with AxCrypt 2 will have been re-encrypted with the AxCrypt 2 updated file format, and with the password used to sign in to AxCrypt 2 (which is not necessarily the same as the password you originally used for AxCrypt 1).

This upgrade of files is probably the reason you’re now getting “the version difference is too large”, although the intention of the old code is actually that you should be getting a message stating “File saved in newer, unsupported, version. Please upgrade.”. However, it’s really hard to be future compatible, so it’s possible the old code flags the newer format as you experience.

I think that if you examine the “modified” date of the files in your backup, and try to open them with your known password using the old version (or the new, I suggest the old just so you can have increased confidence) I think you’ll find that the problematic files occur in date-time clusters. The most probable reason is that you mistyped the password (or used a different one than what you think now) when you encrypted these files. The whole “sign in” system / single password with AxCrypt 2 is designed to minimize the risk of this happening, since we know it does with AxCrypt 1 sometimes.

Rest assured, if you have the original password, you can open the files. Especially the ones from the backup and using the original software, since then we’re removing even the theoretical possibility that the upgrade has anything to do with it.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for the feedback!

I’m thinking that it’s quite a bit about the perception – not the actual situation here. The recipient does need AxCrypt, in all situaitons, it’s just with the “self-decrypting” your perception is that you don’t need AxCrypt – because it’s “self-derypting”. In actual fact it’s still AxCrypt, it’s just a version of AxCrypt that has the data tacked on at the end of itself and reads it from there.

In fact, if you have 10 “self-decrypting” files, you have 10 copies of AxCrypt on your computer. But, yes, I get how it is seen.

We were hoping that users in most cases would see the benefit of the fully-featured portable version instead of the severly stripped down and limited “decrypt only” function of the “self-decrypting” files.

Perhaps we should improve in our communication of how the portable version works, to better explain how it really is a substitute. We’ve also considered making ‘zip-packages’ of encrypted files with the portable AxCrypt included in the archive.

Let’s hope to hear from more users, although this thread is a bit off topic now. I’ll discuss internally to add a another main forum for “Feature Requests”.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi DragonTear,

Nathan is essentially right in his response (thanks!), although I’d like to point out that using AxCrypt 2 portable does not require installing it, just like having the old-style “self-decrypting” file does not require you installing it.

In fact, the only difference is really that you now need two files instead of one. AxCrypt-2.1.NNNN.exe + Whatever-ext.axx.

Anyway, since this question does keep popping up and while we’re still not planning on implementing it for the reasons mentioned in the blog post referred to by Nathn – we’re still interested to achieve similar benefits for similar situations.

So, if you just please explain just how you use the self-decrypting feature, and just what it is about it that is so attractive, perhaps we can come up with a way to satisify everyone?

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi Clare,

It’s possible that Graham has understood your problem and the response will help you out. If not, please add a screenshot to where you’re stuck or explain further just what the problem is.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi Dale,

I did say we are perhaps not allergic, but at least very sensitive to options. They tend to mess up the usability. That doesn’t mean we will refuse to add any options at all. Some are necessary, but what we’re saying is that we think twice at least before adding an option.

The auto sign out option is actually on the to do list.

https://bitbucket.org/axantum/axcrypt-net/issues/208/sign-out-automatically-on-a-set-time

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi Frank!

Yes – Missing .NET 4.5 or later will cause a similar (but not the same) error. Also depending on if you have .NET 4 or not…

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hello Frank,

Thank you for the information, but while I’m sure you had a problem, this unlikely to be the same issue. AxCrypt 1 (the old version) is entirely written in C++/Win32. AxCrypt 2 (the new version) is written in C#/.NET. The error message is caused by a .NET component having problems. The old version had no components shared with .NET, and installed no system components that could be shared.

In short – it’s really hard to see any way that a problem with AxCrypt 1 – broken or not, could affect AxCrypt 2. However, a broken installation of AxCrypt 2 could certainly cause similar symptoms.

What probably fixed it for you was the reinstall of AxCrypt 2, as probably the original installation was broken for whatever reason.

Installing AxCrypt 2 over AxCrypt 1 is a supported scenario and will normally work just fine.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi eddie,

If the file was open during the install of the new version, that at least is a special situation. In that case the upgrade in a way could be related, although it’s a very special case. We have not tried stress testing that particular scenario, but what does happen is that the new software will initiate an uninstall of the old, and that uninstall will in turn ask any running processes to end. It’s supposed to do this in a nice and orderly fashion of course, but it’s not impossible that something could go wrong here causing the old AxCrypt to ended prematurely while writing the updated encrypted file.

I do not recognize this situation at all, it’s actually a first that I’ve heard of, so it’s certainly a pretty isolated case. Still, I’m very sorry for the inconvenience. We do try to make the software as reliable as possible in as many situations as possible.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hello Hov,

Please read https://forum.axcrypt.net/support/faq/#lavasoft-crash  . It is most likely the cause of your trouble.

 

• This reply was modified 9 years ago by  AxCrypt Support.

[AxCrypt SupportModerator]

Hi eddie,

Sorry to hear that. So, you’re saying the file in question resides on a local fixed hard drive? It’s pretty much unheard of that an AxCrypt file would be damaged like it appears to have been on a fixed drive.

Did something unusual happen in the vicinity of the last update of the file? Perhaps a forced reboot by Windows, a power outage, a crash or anything unexpected that could cause a file not to be completely written to disk by AxCrypt?

[Author]

Posts