Minor updates are covered in the 1.0 version, however with the 2.0 version, you can request a free upgrade if you have the serial number from this version.

No main features will be added to 1.0, just bug fixes and some additional extra features.

bubu, I wouldn't think you would, but if it crashes while encrypting, that would be the reason.

Needs 4.5+

BernardZ, Veracrypt is nice :)

I personally use it myself.

Mary, the whole point of encryption is to make it impossible (or as close to impossible as is feasible) to do that.

You're not going to find a Truecrypt-cracking program.

ew, Thank you :P glad you like it.

Dylan, welcome :).

ew, Any extra suggestions? or features you'll like to see?

Dylan, I think context menu integration..don't know what extras I want in the software itself yet.

Dylan, oh yeah it'd be nice if it wouldn't delete original file after encryption is done..and when i'm setting password, i type it in the first field then i hit TAB and it skips the pass confirmation field goes to the last field, can it go to confirm password after pressing TAB in the first password field?

ew, I could add that as a setting, by default it won't delete the file.

Dylan, ok I can't think of anything else now :).

Dylan, it's good to see you as the developer actively responding to our comments. I think that how it should be on giveaway.

ew, :P

ew, Glad people are liking it though, I know it's not perfect, but it's only the first version, has a long way to go still.

I don't mind critics, either, without them, I wouldn't be able to improve onto this creation of mine.

ew and Dylan are stage names to prop up their own software presented here today.

Dylan, Yes Dlyan; make it compatible with XP; don't be like Microsoft - Support XP. There are still a lot of XP users out here. Till then I'll keep it for when I get Windows 7; if that happens before I kick.

Dylan, when should we expect an update and will it be free it we have this giveaway installed?

ew, Minor updates are covered in the 1.0 version, however with the 2.0 version, you can request a free upgrade if you have the serial number from this version.

Dylan, What I'm saying is that, there won't be any major features added in 1.0, but It'll have updates and fixes provided free of charge.

Those holding a valid licence for 1.0 can upgrade to 2.0 for free once It's release.

Dylan, ok, i see.

I see what you mean.
Milk might be a code word for some weapon of mass destruction.
Whole, 2%, 1%, and skim could be quantities you want to buy.....

J Johnny Juice, Negative 6, people here take life too seriously. You got it.

corry, try to find password with HEX Editor for a file encrypted with Jade Encryption, I bet you can't.

That's not how modern encryption works at all, not even jade will write the password to the file. That's a stupid thing to do, It's no longer 1989.

Dylan, This software is not secure at all, the passwords are written in the encrypted file without AES key.
I'm afraid corry is write. Please tell us what is the encryption key, that is, if you know where the password is written for later comparison and in what form.

ew, Do not be so sure, please tell me if you know if any AES keys are used and in how many bits, if you can not find it, corry is correct.

Maria, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

J Johnny Juice, I've been getting programs from that site for about 3 months now. They have some nice giveaways. I did not realize it was "THE" Ashraf. Good to know.

Ashraf has had that site for years, even while he was reviewing here. It was after he and his wife had a baby that he stated he no longer had time to do both and would stop reviewing here. Just FYI.

jboy, it seems unlikely that Ashraf has much if any connection with the dot.tech and sos websites nowadays, judging by their quality. As to reviewing GOTD giveaways, it was great while it lasted (Bladed Thoth was first, then Ashraf, then Karl) and thanks are due to GOTD for facilitating those independent reviews. It is however an incredibly time-consuming task so no surprise that no-one is presently able to do the reviews.

Yeah, I remember that - you could click on a link for a more detailed software critique.

J Johnny Juice,
As long as we're being nostalgic, where's Giovanni? He always had a few free alternatives to the day's offering.

Stuart, quite possibly but the SOS daily email still is signed by him and a few months back when they modified their download method, he did the write-up explaining it.

It is time consuming and life goes on. I try to review when I can but I don't have the technical knowledge, like many here do, to really be constructively analytical about any software.

Karl seemed to have just dropped out of site.

Giovanni was a little too impressed with himself and seems to have disappeared when folks started calling him out for that.

Happy holidays!

Robert Maguire,
Except Borland started with V2. ;-)

Ootje, SimpleCrypt was my previous open source project. (this project is based on that)

The reason for it saying missing dll, is it doesn't have support for windows shell support yet.

Captainn, It's possible, but the licence sticks to that one machine.

Copy Everything from C:\Program Files (x86)\Dylan Morshead\Jade Encryption\ to your flash drive.

Make sure the machine you want to run it on is either windows 10 or has at least .net framework 4.5 on it.

Talleywhacker, Well if you don't trust it don't use it, that being said It does use a open source library, you could always compile your own version of it, and interchange the dlls with that version.

https://www.aescrypt.com/sharp_aes_crypt.html

Dylan, In future versions, I'll include the source code to SharpAESCrypt along side of it. Might even write a plugin manager so you can use your own encryption library with it. I understand your fear about closed source software though, I'm a guy who uses veracrypt ;)

David Murphy,
The file "readme.txt.aes" was created by encrypting the original "readme.txt".
If you open this new file with the GOTD-program and decrypt it, you will get the original file back.
AND do not test software on originals: make copies and test on that. Better safe than sorry.

Ootje, Thanks, yes I tried that and it works. But if you change the "readme.txt.aes" filename to "readme.txt" look at it in a text editor. cancell out of the text editor without changing or saving then change the filename back to "readme.txt.aes" and then try to decrypt you get a message from the decryptor saying something like "the header of the file does not....." something and would go no further. (Can't do it again to see full message have uninstalled). Could be wrong but thats what I think happened.
So what I am thinking is there are some general file management actions you can perform on the encrypted files, like reading them in a text editor, that can result in making them unable to be decrypted. Also if I remember correctly when I read the encrypted file in the text editor the header of the file gave me a clue to what created it as does the .aes in the filename.
I encrypt files so I can send them to others safely, or carry them round on a chip and not be scared of loosing the chip etc. So the file has to be robust, attackable, and renameable, and then still be able to be decrypted by he who has a password.
ie If I created a truecrypt Volume and encrypted it as a single file (the original might contain a number of files) and called it "mysecretstuff" and i wanted to send it to someone I could happily just rename a copy of the file as "readme.txt" and send it. Anybody seeing it with that name would probably ignore it or open it using windows notepad (most computers would too) and all they see is random characters with no idea, not only of what the password is, but also no idea that they might need a password and not even any idea of what program was used to create it. Thus there is a tripple lock and provided the file is not actually corupted it will still be accessable to someone in the know.
I agree that one should test software on copied files in a safe environment. (I actualy tested it on the readme file sent with it by GAOTD) but at some point you will use it for real and the nature of encrypted files is that they are secret so one would tend to keep the encrypted file and copies of it and get rid of the original for absolute security. I would not feel confident if I thought that there is any possibility that an unrelatted file management task might make my vital secret data unreadable or be happy to keep a non encrypted copy on my pc.

David Murphy, i found that it's possible to use Bandizip Archiver to un-encrypt an encrypted file, i don't know if other Archivers will do, in this way you have the context menu entry of bandizip in Explorer. Of course you have to know the password you set.

David Murphy, you most certainly should not still be using TrueCrypt as it contains a severe unpatched security vulnerability that can compromise your system by allowing an unprivileged process to gain administrator access via the TrueCrypt driver.

You should switch to either Veracrypt or Ciphershed, both of which are forks of TrueCrypt and both of which have that security vulnerability corrected.

Jim Stone, Thank you, that is very useful and gets me more up to date.

clas, You can, use https://www.aescrypt.com/sharp_aes_crypt.html

Dylan, Whoops, I meant. https://www.aescrypt.com/

It uses the AES format, and is completely works with aescrypt.

Damar M., I'm adding that on my todo list for version 2.0

Damar M., What features would you like to see implemented?

I've currently got language packs planned, minor bug fixes currently.

Dylan, maybe built in file explorer? and dark & light theme options, and remove the register and buy button after user was registered, and built in archiver.

Damar M., Icons are crystal clear ... Put your glasses on!

Peter Blaise, AES 256 bit encryption, Text Encryption, easy to use drag and drop encryption.

Some of the benefits are that you can use it to encrypt a large amount of files at a time, supports folder encryption if you drag a folder into it.

Nigel, any purpose meaning anything you want to encrypt, if you want to encrypt your dog food, you can scan it with a scanner, and encrypt the scanned image.

That being said, most software will not do those things for you. :P

Dylan,

As to the software under review, Jade Encrypton 1.0 :

A. Since the software is dependent upon a feature that may or may not be continued in net framework, is there a risk that, one will find that when he goes to decrypt, the process will fail?

B. In the use of software, such as this, if one encrypts a file, emails it to someone else, what is the typical manner in which one communicates to the recipient the manner i which to decrypt the file?

C. If one has a computer failure, and must rescue data files, the rescued file may nevertheless be inoperable. I suspect that this might be ever more so the case if the file is encrypted. Am I correct? What are the tried and tested ways of safeguarding against this, aside from archiving a copy of the software and the encrypted file?

HJB, Ok sorry for the late reply.

A. You can still decrypt files in Jade Encryption with other tools, such ases AES crypt.

B. I'm not too sure, just tell them to use AEScrypt.

C. Yes and no, depends if the file has actual damage or not.

Dylan, https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/download/confirmation.aspx?id=30653

Dylan,

Thanks for today's software. A couple of quick questions. Firstly how long is the licence for and if/when it expires what happens to any files encrypted?

krypteller, Well It's not directly my fault, just human error, I used a second machine to compile and test the software, and by default that version of visual studio compiles to 4.0, by default something I missed until after launch.

It completely missed testing, as all the machines and testers had updated windows 7 with .net framework 4.5, but I've listed .net 4.5 as the version needed on my website.

Because of the features not being supported in 4.0, and having 4.5 on all the machines, it didn't appear as a problem, until I noticed a bunch of people having issues.

Well, I just looked into the issue, that's not the problem, I was looking at an earlier version.

The current version (the one on this site) is compiled for 4.5.2 and that is the target framework.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15113873/does-net-4-5-include-net-4-0

https://s14.postimg.org/hqqpxqght/lol.png

So as I said, I'm not at direct fault. 4.5 is literally an upgrade, and is backwards compatible with 4.0. so it'll crash if 4.0 uses a feature that is only in 4.5

Dylan,
I forgot to mention, https://postimg.org/image/egxexj28h/

Won't even compile for the platform 4.0, so I'm literally not at fault here.

It's a .net problem

DaveC, uses the aes format, if it expires you can still decrypt it using a tool called aescrypt.

Dylan, Thanks. I tested this on many files and directories and put simply it does the job it's intended for without any problems. Perhaps some people think it could do with a bit of fine tuning but as it stands no complaints here. Keep up the good work.