The Portable Freeware Collection Forums

SlunkCrypt is an experimental cross-platform cryptography library and command-line tool. A fully-featured GUI is provided for the Windows platform.

Please refer to the section encryption algorithm for more details!



Supported platforms include Microsoft Windows (XP SP-3, or later), Linux (kernel 3.17, or later), various BSD flavors (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), Solaris, GNU/Hurd, Haiku and Mac OS X.

The Windows GUI requires .NET Framework 4.5, or later (can be installed on Vista SP-2, or later; already included in Windows 8, or later)

License:
CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain)

Screenshots:
https://i.imgur.com/AccqxCk.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/NgZrxX7.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/g1Li2g2.png
https://i.imgur.com/yWTe9JG.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/jlswojB.png

Manual:
http://slunkcrypt.osdn.io/README.html

Download:
https://osdn.net/projects/slunkcrypt/releases/

Always great to have you and your software, but why an encryption program? Is this different or better than similar tools e.g. Kleopatra or AxCrypt?

deathcubek wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 11:36 am License:
CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain)

CC license is great for content, not something they recommend for software. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- ... o-software

webfork wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:52 pm but why an encryption program? Is this different or better than similar tools e.g. Kleopatra or AxCrypt?

I think "better" is not the right category here

Of course, you can just use one of the the existing encryption programs and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that — though I'd rather go with a "true" free/libre software such as VeraCrypt, instead of a dubious "freemium" service like AxCrypt, which claims to be "OpenSource" but has no source codes anywhere to be found on their web-site, just a ton of advertising for paid services; Kleopatra, being a GUI front-end to GnuPG, is another use case — but creating your own encryption software is more fun and enlightening

Is it different? Well, yes. It's a completely independent algorithm and implementation, created from the scratch. Though based on well-established concepts and a scientific paper, which proposed various improvements.

deathcubek wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 11:36 am License:
CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain)
CC license is great for content, not something they recommend for software. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- ... o-software

In fact, it is a common practice that cryptographic algorithms and their reference implementation are released as "public domain".

...probably because no cryptographic algorithm that is "tainted" by a restrictive license would ever have a chance to get widespread adoption. Even an OpenSource license like GPL is considered too much restrictive in this regard, because it would make using that algorithm impossible in any software project that, for whatever reasons, can't be released under the GPL as a whole. More permissive OpenSource licenses like MIT or BSD may work, but "public domain" is preferred in order to rule out any doubts.

Also "CC0" license is a common choice, as used by SHA-3 (Keccak) and BLAKE2, just to name two prominent examples...

deathcubek wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 10:01 am ... creating your own encryption software is more fun and enlightening

I guess I always thought of development as something to solve the problem you're having, not as a mental effort in itself. That makes sense.

deathcubek wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 11:36 am In fact, it is a common practice that cryptographic algorithms and their reference implementation are released as "public domain".

Based on various conversation on this over time, "public domain" broadly refers to wildly different standards depending on where you live. So some specifics like the license you listed is ideal. I'm not a lawyer, just relating what I've heard and because this comes up a lot in our forums.

deathcubek wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 11:36 am Also "CC0" license is a common choice

Certainly many projects use that license. What I'm suggesting is that the Creative Commons folks in particular specifically ask people not to use their license for software.

I do fully subscribe to the idea that cryptography software should, at the very least, have their source code available for inspection.

Security by obscurity has been proven time and time again to be not a very good idea.

SlunkCrypt 1.2.1
https://gitlab.com/lord_mulder/slunkcry ... ases/1.2.1

What's new:

• Added preliminary support for “Windows on ARM” platform to Windows release
• Support for Haiku OS platform has been added
• Fixed building the "core" library without multi-threading (pthread) support
• Various minor fixes and improvements

SlunkCrypt 1.3.0
https://gitlab.com/lord_mulder/slunkcry ... ases/1.3.0

What's new:

• Implemented enhanced/faster initialization code*
• GUI: Updated to .NET Framework version to 4.7.2 + make window resizable
• Added improved debug logging (optional, disabled by default)
• Various minor fixes and improvements

Important notice:
* In order to decrypt files that have been encrypted with SlunkCrypt version 1.2.x or older, the “legacy” compatibility-mode (environment variable SLUNK_LEGACY_COMPAT) must be enabled from now on! New files should not be encrypted with “legacy” compatibility-mode enabled.