Parameter to rename the encrypted and decrypted files.

[bogronaso]

Dear Kryptor Team,

I’d like to suggest adding a parameter that allows users to rename files during the encryption and decryption processes. This feature would enhance usability and improve file management for users.

Thank you for considering this enhancement!

Best,
Bogronaso.

[samuel-lucas6]

Hi, thanks for the feature request. The reason this isn't supported is because you can specify multiple files/directories at once, which makes this messy. I agree it could be useful for single files, but I don't really want to add an option that only works when one file is specified.

I'd like to make another file encryption tool in the future that's as simple as possible, kind of like Encpipe. That would allow you to specify the name of the output file.

[hakavlad]

has an unnecessarily large tag

I saw that you recommended it for additional security:

A 256-bit authentication tag is sufficient for most use cases: however, a 512-bit tag provides additional security if you’re concerned about quantum computing.

-- Cryptography-Guidelines

Is this still relevant?

[hakavlad]

There was nothing that couldn't have been found by auditing the code yourself for free

It's bs. Picocrypt users are not cryptographers and not gophers. It's also not free, because time=money. "auditing the code yourself for free" needs time, especially for those who are not experts.

[samuel-lucas6]

Is this still relevant?

As I keep saying, the guidelines need an overhaul, but it's a massive job, I'm extremely slow at writing/researching, and it feels like I'm working on too many things at once.

It's bs. Picocrypt users are not cryptographers and not gophers. It's also not free, because time=money. "auditing the code yourself for free" needs time, especially for those who are not experts.

I'm saying the author should audit the code. If it's a relatively simple program, it's less likely that you'd miss something.

Other people may also voluntarily audit the code for free, or you could try a bug bounty, which would be cheaper but results in loads of spam.

[hakavlad]

I'm saying the author should audit the code.

The author is not an expert. He can't even conduct a qualified audit. An audit is an independent check, that's the point.

[samuel-lucas6]

The author is not an expert. He can't even conduct a qualified audit. An audit is an independent check, that's the point.

I'm using the word audit to mean examine, and audits as a concept don't have to be done by a third party.

Obviously, a developer is probably less familiar with identifying/fixing vulnerabilities, but a lot of vulnerabilities don't apply to this type of application, the developer should have a better understanding of what the code is doing, the developer doesn't necessarily have a deadline, and looking at your own code doesn't cost a few thousand each time.

Peer review is never a bad thing, but it's hard to get in practice and not necessarily required.