About a month and a half ago I wrote about open source whole disk encryption software (this was just before TrueCrypt 5 came out) and mentioned an open source program called DiskCryptor which has been available since late fall and was the first open source whole drive encryption (system partition encryption) utility to support Windows that I’m aware of.

DiskCryptor has releases hosted on SourceForge and additional information on the primary developer’s website. Though the developer’s site is in Russian the Google translation facility does an ok job of translating it.

I started using DiskCryptor a few weeks before TrueCrypt 5 came out and was really impressed. Once TrueCrypt was released I tried that and while I do appreciate some aspects of the super redundancy in TrueCrypt whole disk encryption I soon went back to using DiskCryptor for a couple of reasons.

First, I had problems with TrueCrypt blue-screening on me and sometimes preventing my system from shutting down properly (it would sometimes reboot instead of shutting down). This made me quite uncomfortable as I was trusting my data to the software. I understand there have been a few patches to TrueCrypt since I tested version 5.0 which fixes some of the problems people were having and which I have not tried yet but there are other reasons I prefer DiskCryptor.

Second, while all the hand holding and redundant systems in TrueCrypt do make it (to some extent) dummy-resistant they are actually quite a pain when being utilized by a power user and there is no way to bypass them. In some cases it is either inconvenient or unnecessary to create a recovery CD. DiskCryptor does not require that a recovery CD be created and has different, perhaps more robust methods of recovering the data should the need arise.

Third, DiskCryptor supports hibernation! This is reason enough to use DiskCryptor for many laptop users. I understand that TrueCrypt 5.1 includes hibernation support but it appears a bug may have been introduced at the same time with dire consequences for drive security. Read about this bug in English and see the code problem in Russian. This may be fixed in TreuCrypt 5.1a but is not specifically mentioned as fixed in the TrueCrypt changelog as far as I can see.

Fourth, DiskCryptor has (in my mind) more robust/useful recovery options. This is for several reasons. While there is no recovery CD or extensive boot loader decryption ala TrueCrypt the encrypted volumes are fully compatible with standard TrueCrypt encrypted volumes (including pre-TrueCrypt 5). This means you can take a DiskCryptor encrypted volume and physically attach the drive to another system or boot into another OS and then mount and decrypt the drive with TrueCrypt. You cannot even do this with TrueCrypt encrypted drives as the technology behind TrueCrypt whole drive encryption is not compatible with regular TrueCrypt encrypted volumes. To me this is really exciting and useful as it allows me to move drives between systems and retain access to the encrypted data. There is also a BartPE plugin for DiskCryptor so you can boot from a BartPE CD and decrypt/access the encrypted drive. Finally, support is in version 0.3 (coming out shortly) for installing the DiskCryptor boot code on other media (eg. flash memory keys, CD-ROMs, etc.)

Fifth, DiskCryptor appears to be faster than TrueCrypt 5 WDE. At least on my system I noticed no slowdown with DiskCryptor but TrueCrypt 5 significantly slowed down my disk intensive operations. This is a major reason I personally switched back to DiskCryptor and I’m not the only one as evidenced by some posts in the DiskCryptor forums which indicate that in terms of MB/s DiskCryptor is as much as twice as fast as TrueCrypt 5, at least on some systems. Based on my experience I would agree. I understand there have been some performance enhancements in TrueCrypt 5.1a which include some assembly optimization (which was already a part of DiskCryptor) and I have not had a chance to test this latest version yet but believe speed improvements have also been made in the latest version of DiskCryptor which may still give it the edge.

Sixth, the development of DiskCryptor is both more active and more responsive to users than TrueCrypt. “ntldr” the developer of DiskCryptor has been very open to suggestions and very responsive to users through the forum on their website http://freed0m.org/forum the same cannot be said for TrueCrypt. Based on what I’ve seen from various TrueCrypt users they have been often ignored by the TrueCrypt developers who seem to be a small group of developers who do not respond particularly well to users or accept development assistance (one of the major benefits of open source development). The disenfranchised users include the DiskCryptor developer “ntldr” along with OS X users who started a project called OS X Crypt because of the unresponsive nature of TrueCrypt developers. I think this potentially will be a huge problem for TrueCrypt and it makes me somewhat concerned about the motives and long term success of the TrueCrypt development team. This is also manifested in the somewhat restrictive nature of the TrueCrypt source license compared with other open source licenses such as the GPL (which is used by DiskCryptor). While TrueCrypt may be open source it is most definitely not GPL software and not GPL compatible (read about the issues of including this with GPL software here)

There is one downside to DiskCryptor, there is currently no real help file or instructions for using it but I was able to figure it out by looking at the menu options all of which seem fairly straightforward to me. This is an acknowledged flaw and is being actively worked on by a few DiskCryptor users. In the meantime the primary developer is more concerned about enhancing the feature set and eradicating bugs than on developing documentation, an understandable position for many volunteer software developers.

Communication and publicity is not a strong suit for DiskCryptor and this may be partially to the fact that English is not the first language of the developer. In my opinion this, more than anything, is holding back what is otherwise an excellent (and in my mind superior to TrueCrypt) product. Much of the information is available but it’s in the DiskCryptor forums which contain a mix of Russian and English making them not the most user friendly way to learn about the software. There has also been little tech press coverage of the program.

I am not so much trying to make the case by myself that DiskCryptor is a better product for everyone, though it was for me. I am trying to bring some attention to the first open source whole disk encryption program (there was even a Wikipedia vote where it was decided to eliminate the page for DiskCryptor as non-notable and where people seriously questioned if it was just a knock off of TrueCrypt 5!) and encourage others to talk about and try DiskCryptor. Certainly the program could use some English language press if it is to grow significantly. Hopefully by explaining my reasons for selecting DiskCryptor as my choice I’ve encouraged you to at least keep an open mind and try the software then write and share your experience with others.