DiskCryptor and VeraCrypt: why two of the same?

Post Reply
Daver
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:17 am

DiskCryptor and VeraCrypt: why two of the same?

Post by Daver »

Any reason to use DiskCryptor or VeraCrypt? They both offer the same functionality. Why not merge all the benefits of both into one?

DavidXanatos
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:05 pm

Re: DiskCryptor and VeraCrypt: why two of the same?

Post by DavidXanatos »

VeraCrypt and DiskCryptor do many things but with one exception they in fact don't do the same things.

At least from a technical aspect, i know for a user it looks much the same, but it isn't.

You see, VeraCrypt started of as a container encryption tool i.e. you used it to mount virtual encrypted drives that were located in a file, later you could use a partition directly.
But it never mounted the partition transparently but instead created a new block device to represent the decrypted volume.

The only exception to this behavior is the OS partition encryption of VeraCrypt here it in fact transparently mounts the system partition instead of creating a new device.

DiskCryptor on the other hand only provides transparent partition mounting. This have many advantages, for example you can use dynamic drives and use on board windows partitioning tools to shrink and or expand an encrypted volume.

VeraCrypt is not transparent and only recently able to expand a volume using a custom tool.

VeraCrypt is also known for breaking VSS: https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Issues%20an ... tions.html
The Windows Volume Shadow Copy Service is currently supported only for partitions within the key scope of system encryption (e.g. a system partition encrypted by VeraCrypt, or a non- system partition located on a system drive encrypted by VeraCrypt, mounted when the encrypted operating system is running). Note: For other types of volumes, the Volume Shadow Copy Service is not supported because the documentation for the necessary API is not available.
So for example you can use Acronis True Image to create un encrypted backup images (what saves a lot of storage space) of your currently in use encrypted partitions, of cause its advisable to put said images only on encrypted storage, but thats the users responsibility.


Now to file based containers, VeraCrypt is more suited for that task, but you can nowadays use windows onboard tools in the disk management snap-in to create *.VHD virtual drives i.e. disk images that can be mounted for read and write and encrypt them with Disk Cryptor


Also VeraCrypt has a major unfixed bug as of now: https://sourceforge.net/p/veracrypt/dis ... it=25#8048 random system freezes in certain usage scenarios, not good.


I would say for partition and OS encryption use DiskCryptor, for file based containers use VeraCrypt.
That's what the tools have been made for and that's what they are best at.

DiskCryptor provided system volume encryption before TrueCrypt (VeraCrypt's predecessor) and than the TrueCrypt Devs added this functionality in a rather quick and dirty way, for example the os partition format is not the same as for other partitions, etc....
and many things (encryption of a partition without lost of data, expanding of partitions, stuff like that) you can do with DiskCryptor since always are only recently have been added to VeraCrypt using more workarounds.

I'm not saying VeraCrypt isn't good, just that it was made for a different purpose (at which its great) but the implementation of partition encryption is only so so as it was not in the original scope of the project and to have been added properly would require a larger redesign which never happened.

Cheers
David X.

Daver
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:17 am

Re: DiskCryptor and VeraCrypt: why two of the same?

Post by Daver »

Thank you for your explanation. 8-)

Post Reply