Bigbob567, often that can happen if you have ever opted to unsubscribe from anything giveawayoftheday.com using the email you requested the link to be sent to, if that has happened then drop GAOTD an email via their contact page/ email address and ask them to take your email off their do not send list or whatever they call it. Or just use another email address that you've never used with giveawayoftheday.com before.

Bigbob567, I think there's something wrong at your end, it always works for me. Have you checked your spam box?

A different email address worked. I did download the software. However when I tried to get the serial number
was advise the software was no longer available.
On this page its still indicating 4hrs 14mins left..
I guess not meant to be. Thats OK I can live without the
software. Thanks for your efforts..

Gentlemen Joe,

AFAIK encryption & allowing/restricting access is usually a feature of the NAS itself, with different brands/models offering different options.

Gentlemen Joe,
it's a safe, when you open the door not only the bankmager can get in but also Nosey Parker...
You can always exclude its location from the network.

lidl1, are you sure? It's supposed to create live encrypted containers... to have them unencrypted once "opened" would require decrypting all the data at once which would take quite some time on a 2TB encrypted container stored in the cloud... Could you be taking the safe analogy a little too literally? Don't forget some of the safes are intended to be stored on write once media like CD-ROM or DVD-ROM discs so they cannot be switched between encrypted and unencrypted.
The container interaction takes place in the local machines live encryption driver SleeN19.sys or SleeN1964.sys, not in the NAS firmware so a different machine on the same LAN will only see the encrypted container file on the NAS share and will need to have it's own live encryption driver and key set to access the NAS shares encrypted container, if it works as it claims.

TK,
True if the file stays stored on the NAS. with location I meant the location on your pc when you access the file you want to see or work with...

lidl1, what you describe should not be a problem with the claimed design of this product if it performs flawlessly. It would be a problem if you or any program you made local unencrypted coppies of the decrypted-encrypted content on an unencrypted volume or put some of that data into the systems paging file. You'd also want to ensure you were not running a version of windows that permits multi-user simultaneous logins like server versions do but unhacked desktop editions don't.

If you needed to keep a local edited copy of the sensitive data you'd just create a local encrypted container on one of the local volumes and put the systems temp folder there and never commit any sensitive data to the systems clipboard, i.e. drag and drop files or selected text and not copy and paste.

When you access an encrypted file just the memory buffer is in plain text and your end user program uses that and not a local copy of the decrypted file unless you make the copy yourself and then work on it.

Working with sensitive encrypted data and keeping it secure requires strict working procedures and many programs can simply not be used with sensitive data if privacy and secrecy is to be maintained. Such requirements are tedious at best, which is why I don't put sensitive or secret data onto computerised systems in the first place. As mistakes happen.

SYED SAUD QUADRI, I am experiencing the exact same problem, please some advice. Thanks

SYED SAUD QUADRI,

Google.
I did using the search term: "api-ms-win-crt-runtime-|1-1-0.dll" is missing, getting a few thousand hits. You'd have to try some of the proposed solutions -- I can't say which might fix your system.

Hi, this means you finally installed the program? thanks

TK, - If a car manufacturer tells you not to run your car without oil and you do it anyways and then experience mechanical problems, is it the car manufacturer's fault?? I think not. So, If Steganos says this version requires at minimum Windows 7 and you try to install it using Vista, don't you think your complaint may be a little unfair - just saying :)

DblK, do I think my complain isa even a little unfair? Nope! If the installer places files on a given operating system the uninstaller should remove them on that same operating system. If the uninstaller as well as the program itself cannot run on a given operating system then the installer SHOULD NOT RUN ON UNSUPPORTED OPERATING SYSTEMS. The prime point of my post is NOT my personal and professional criticisims of the installer and uninstaller faults but the capitalised and bold font section warning less experienced users not to attempt to install it on vista and earlier operating systems because it WILL cause troubles that should never occour!

With your analogy... it would be the cat manufacturers fault if they deliberatly excluded and oil pressure sensor and oil pressure warning light but left the place holder and lens filter in place so you had no indication that there would be a problem and the cars electronic control unit was unable to shut the engine down to protect itself from damage. i.e. that equates to not checking the host windows version at the start of the installer and not checking for errors during the installation process of services etc.

TK, Sorry but your argument falls flat on its face for me. They state the conditions (win 7 and up) , making the assumption that the user can follow this logic. Why would they want to put uninstall options and support for unsupported operating systems in place, they logically assume that given the specs (win 7 and above) users are intelligent enough to read this and understand. You wouldn't stick a fork into a live toaster because you thought that it having a plastic handle might stop you blowing up the toaster and electrocuting yourself would you? :)

grangehearts, my argument would fall flat on its face if they put anywhere do not install this on versions of windows prior to windows 7.... they don't say this anywhere I can see! That is the prime point of my original post! Also it is NOT normal or best practice to have installers charge ahead and install without a prompt to accept End user license terms or the facility to alter installation parameters. This installer dives right in, does not check the windows version, does not ensure end user agrees to their end user license or anything! They should at the least set the Minimum NT version required run the executable to 6.1 then attempting to run the installer on any version of windows prior to NT 6.1 (windows 7) would result in windows shell reporting the installer was not a valid win32 or win64 application as apropriate. That preventative measure would be like the guard plates on the live and neutral connections on a 3 pin mains socket that stay in place until a protective longer earth pin is inserted first with a compatible plug.

There should be zero risk trying to install software for a more recent version of windows on an earlier version of windows, competent developers check to make sure the environment they are running on is compatible with the application to be installed or use measures to prevent installation and if they do allow inadvertant installation they should spot errors spawning tasks during installation and roll back the failed install and if the installation apears successful but could not run the uninstaller should be able to remove the program on any operating system its installer runs on.

I presume in your little ad-absurdance analogy you do mean a metal or otherwise electrically conductive fork and not a plastic or ceramic insulating fork? ;)
Because if you read the quick start manual they do include warnings not to insert objects into the slots to clean or unjam the mechanisims... this vendor ... again I state does NOT give such warnings that nasty things happen if you mistakenly or speculatively install on versions of windows prior to Windows 7...

krypteller, how do you know who the majority of visitors are, and surely if that were true then surely it is best to warn the non-geeks still using the privately supported versions of windows i.e. XP and Vista not to speculatively try todays program just in case the exclusion of Vista and earlier from system requirements is just a marketing ploy to make an older program apear more modern and cutting edge.
FYI my vista sp2 is still fully patched and I get new security patches every month from Microsoft for it so Vista SP2 is still supported if you are geeky enough to figure it out OR have a contract to receive patches from Microsoft!

krypteller, thanks for the suggestion but I do not need strong encryption to hide secrets ... I don't put important secrets on digital media:)

TK, You are actually saying it's their fault- because they didn't PREVENT you from attempting an install??? I can't decide if you're a troll, or you're a prime example of a generation who believe the world owes them, while simultaneously granting themselves absolution from personal accountability. Either way, I find your argument and your predicament laughable- because it's not MY problem.

DblK, Car manufacturers do tend to supply cars WITH oil in them so running a car that is in good condition with no oil is unlikely! It would require the end user draining the oil... I don't see where your analogy has ANY relevence whatsoever despite lots of people thinking your comment is somehow useful. If Steganos configured their installer properly in the first place it would not install on versions of windows prior to windows 7.

Running a car engine without oil is analogus to running a computer without a functioning cooling system like blocked air vents or siezed or disconnected fans. Nothing like trying to install a program and it make a mess of a system installing drivers from 3rd parties and installing incompatible services and startup items... and incompatible uninstaller so it cannot be removed or rolled back automatically - just saying :)

Johnny, yes it IS their fault they did not check the host operating system before installing, while I known precisely what version of windows I am using there are millions who do not know what version of windows they are using at all! Programmers have a duty of care to ensure their installers do not damage end users machines regardless of what version of windows it is. I am not requesting absolution for personal acountability, it is you that is granting Steganos developers absolution for personal accountability for what the executables they supply do on end users machines regardless of what the end users machine is.

Personally I do not care what you decide of me since my experience and advice to other users of windows prior to Windows 7 have now been properly warned to not try todays giveaway since it is not just not supported under Vista or earlier it is incompatible and damaging to those unsupported operating systems.

TK, While I agree with your excellent reviews of most products on here, Im afraid on this 1 I have to throw it out the window. System Requirements given on most software is the minimum that will allow that particular software to run. It installed partially on Vista because part of the "inners" of Vista are still used on Microsoft..It is not Steganos fault that Microsoft did this nor is it their fault if they did not encode the uninstaller to go hunting for Vista particles, when they have no mention of it actually being able to Vista..
As for the car analogy, minimum system requirements are that it has oil in it and if you run it out of oil, that is your fault, not the car manufactures fault...if the oil pressure light comes on, more likely than not the engine is already experiencing internal damage (they come on at very low pressure) and most older models dont shut down the engine due to low oil pressure...just common sense says if it requires oil (minimum system requirement), make sure it's in there and if minimum system requirements DON'T say Vista, XP etc and you install it on those systems, its your fault not the software developers.

krypteller, You have got it all mixed up. Microsoft stopped support for XP not because it was not the best so far but because they wanted people to buy a new one. Many who comment on this page recommend (as I do) to keep on XP.
The point here ids different — if they say from 7 up, then only an idiot tries something earlier and complains it doesn’t work properly. The programme appealed to me but when I saw WIN7 UP I realised it is not for me with my XP, but I read the comments out of interest.
The problem arises when they claim that it is suitable for, let us say, 98 up, and one tries with 98 or XP or 2000 and it does not work — and sadly this often happens! A complaint then is valid If it says for DOS then it should work for DOS (which incidentally I mainly use, more than XP). The manufacturer must be honest and the customer must not be stupid.

DJ, That is your choice but personally and professionaly the installer is badly written. The reason it partially installs under Vista is because the installer is built to run under vista and it should not be, and the install script does not check the host windows version before proceeding, it's a very simple series of errors that any responsible developer would never allow to occour. The "inners" of Vista while being similar to that used in all versions of Windows NT right up to current windows 10 it is very easy to test for and deny installation based upon the reported version of NT... the developer choose not to test or define the acceptable minimum NT version which should have been NT version 6.1 or above and it is currently set to values lower than 6.0 or lower for all the executables and drivers and the installer too permitting Windows Vista and bellow the opertunity to try and execute them which should not be allowed.

If you let the oil run out in a car and ignore the oil pressure warning light it is your fault not the manufacturer BUT if the manufacturer leaves the oil out of the car and never tells you OR does not fit an oil pressure sensor or oil pressure warning indicator or dipstick and it seizes up due to lack of oil and you never put any in when you got the car because properly made cars always already have oil in and oil pressure sensors and a functioning oil pressure warning light then it is the manufacturers fault. It is easy to twist an analogy to put the blame on the end user but if the fault is in the design and manufacture and explicit lack of instructions warning that the product is designed to cause damage without special care which is the case with this product then it is the developers fault not the end users!

My warning and recomendation is what Stegenos should have done and that is Do not try to install this under Vista or earlier unless you want to deal with a bunch of hassle removing it manually or through restoring from a backup.

If you don't believe me try it yourself, if you don't want to because you know it won't work a) because the system requirements don't mention Vista or earlier versions of windows then great but as most who come to this site know the system requirements published by vendors here and sometimes even on their own sites do not always tell the complete truth and sometimes the published system requirements deliberatly exclude older operating systems that the software does fully support but the vendors want to pretend the product is designed for a more modern operating system to apeal to those that do not want software based upon old software for example the drivers in this are based upon 4 year old software by a completely different software house!
If you do not have, or do not wish to try this on, Vista or earlier systems then this entire thread is not aimed at you, so then please feel free to disregard the warnings presented here by myself but please do not try to convince others the warnings are invalid if you don't run Vista or earlier and have not tried installing this yourself as you may cause others with Vista or earlier to try to install this and get into a mess!

krypteller, we don't normally see the warnings that installing on versions other than those formally supported will damage your windows installation simply because if the developer had the forsight to see the danger then if they had at least half a brain they would have put in place at least one of the simple mechanisims to prevent installation on non-authorised versions of windows. BTW many Windows programs can be installed in a linux system and run under wine which I am sure you are aware. No idea if there is a an x86 windows emulator for iphone that would allow it to run on an iphone under the emulator...

So you too had it install when you tried it under a virtualised XP machine and also had it's uninstaller fail to remove it and had to basically uninstall by reboot like Karl used to say.

I've removed all traces of this from my vista machine now so won't be trying it on my virtual or real XP machines. And because of the clear failures by these developers with regard to the installer and odd placing of 64bit driver on a 32bit machine suggesting the developer is not fully aware what they are doing or how to do it right I will not be installing this on my Win10 machines.

Laxative, companies often go out of business by insisting customers must not be stupid. Microsoft bases it's entire business model and user interface on the evolving understanding that if it wants everyone to own a licensed copy of the latest version of windows then design the product as if most of the customer base is technologically stupid and hide all the geeky tech stuff away from the pretty user interface.

If they say 7 and up then it should only install on 7 and up, and if not then whatever it installs on it should also uninstall on.
BTW just to be clear I was not complaining that the program did not work properly on windows versions older than Windows 7. But I was warning that it would blindly install on windows versions older than windows 7 but it would not uninstall under the same operating systems which is the actual problem.

TK, In order to deny an install on a Vista platform, or build an uninstaller, they would need to dig through Microsoft code and compare..if all vendors did this the price of their software would be enormous..Microsoft does a good job identifying to vendors what will/wont run, but code does slip through and I myself would not want to ponder every line of the Vista operating system so that I can design an installer/uninstaller that will hunt for all that code to uninstall. All I need and should be expected to do is place "System requirements" and most people will understand. I myself have tried installing programs, that "system requirements" state Win 7 and above, on Vista and XP..they foul up and wont install/uninstall properly and I have noone to blame but myself as I read "system requirements"
As for the oil analogy, yes if the manufacture did not put oil in the car, when brand new, then it is their fault the engine siezed..however ALL cars and trucks are run through a final inspection to make sure this doesnt happen, the engines would seize at the plant and ALL manuals state not to let your vehicle run out of oil or severe engine damage will result.. ALL software developers place "DO NOT" warnings on their products in the form of of "System requirements"..ie if the platform isnt listed then it's caveot emptor install

DJ, clearly you are not a developer but they are supposed to be Windows developers and as such they would NEVER need to dig through Microsoft code and compare anything! No reverse engineering is required, it can be done without a single line of code! The linker can be instructed to specify the minimum version of windows NT the executable will run under it is all fully documented and if that seems too simple then there is a standard windows API that retrieves the windows version it's not hard it's one of the most trivial operations and most novices will do it not long after their first "hello world" program, to display something like "Hello World from Microsoft Windows Version 6.0.18000" when run under Vista SP2

Just had a look at version 19 and it too has the same installer bug it will try to install the windows 7 and above program on anything above Windows NT 4.0 ! So yes it'd try and install in Windows 2000! I could edit the installer so it will refuse to run under any version of windows less than Windows 7 by just editing two bytes in the installers PE header and so could the developer and then they could re-sign the executable and then the installer would simply not execute under Vista or lower.

Software developers do not place "DO NOT" warnings on their products in terms of system requirements System Requirements are guidlines nothing more. For example many developers use a newer version of windows to be able to use new hardware and dev environment so assume the dev environment they use won't build for earlier versions of windows. The media converter called "handbrake" is supposed to be incompatible with Windows Vista therefore Windows 7 is supposed to be the oldest version of windows it will run on yet I have it installed and working here under Vista SP2 without error.

Many more experienced developers will state they don't support an XP SP3 but it may run ok under it, no warranties expressed or implied because the developer doesn't have an XP machine to fully test the program. While others might just block XP SP3 installation and execution in the executables PE header to avoid any complication.

TK, No I am not a developer, but at the same time I can read..if I dont see my operating system listed 1 of 2 things happen A: I wont install it to see how badly it could cripple my system or B: I would get in communication with them beforehand and see if they had a work around! I wont go into a tangent on how bad a developer is because I was stupid enough to try and install it without communication from them first. Its great if you understand code and how to make it work, but dont chastise a developer because they did not make their software infallible. If someone can read and it does not say Vista or XP, dont try and install it OR get in touch with the developer first!

DJ, I would not call you any more stupid trying to install a software product on an earlier version of windows or other lower spec'd machine than stated in system requirements than someone buying a lottery ticket.. There is a far greater probability you will win the prize of a working program than winning the top lottery prize.

As a proffessional alpha/beta tester, amongst other things, I can tell you that with a closed source commercial encryption product like this I do expect their software to be infallible! Otherwise it is of less than zero worth since if they can't even build a compitent installer/uninstaller that is safe to run under all conditions how can they be entrusted to keep sensitive data safe and secure? Fact is I found the URL to download the unwrapped installer for version 18 offered here yesterday and its installer would try to install on Windows 2000 and earlier versions of windows this is just plain crazy as krypteller discovered in an earlier comment above the last version to support Vista in the quoted text "Only Steganos Privacy Suite 2008 (as of 10.0.4) as well as Steganos Safe 2008 (as of 10.1) will support the different Windows VISTA 64bit versions."

So they have had at least 10 years to stop their installers running on unsupported versions of windows dating back to before the year 2000!

If a developer cannot be trusted with the most basic of things how are they to be trusted with our most sensitive data and kernel mode drivers.

It's not like this is some cute toy app that is not important if it crashes once an a while and is never charged for.

krypteller, I archive.org'd it and found that last version to support Vista and maybe XP was 17.. it would still try and install on Windows 2000 and earlier but would not uninstall properly on anything under XP.

That FAQ was last updated in 2009 and so does not give an anywhere near complete picture

I note they bundle the GPL mkisofs.exe cygwin utility without including the GPL license for it or giving proper attribution... I think if I ever have a need for strong encrypted containers and more I'll opt for VeraCrypts as that is peer reviewable open source and not closed source by a company that messes up some of the very basics of program design and does not apear to honor bundled open source programs license requirements.

TK, Never mentioned a metal or electrically conductive fork, just a live toaster, not a potentially live one, where it's plugged in, power switched on, but the mechanism hasn't been activated. A live one.
If you want to go sticking plastic forks or your good cutlery into toasters, no problem, just don't blame me if you bugger up your toaster.

TK, haha, the truth hurts xD

But yes , very true :P

krypteller, yep I know they do but as you quoted I was refering to the description they gave to GAOTD above for this giveaway. Which gives the impression they were making things up... I do suggest though that relying on wikipedia articles to justify coloquial rewriting of encryption standard names is not best advised which is why I reffered to it IEEE document and not the "anyone can edit" wikipedia entry.

You may notice that the term in that wikipedia article shows XEX-AES is only used in draft 7 of the standard and was changed to XTS-AES in draft 11 but at no point was it ever formally called "AES-XEX" and definately not "AES-XES"!

Vangelis, Check on www.virustotal.com.
There are no ideal antivirus programs.

All, espec. newcomers: this Avast problem is a longstanding artifact of the wrapper that GOTD uses to limit installation to the authorized day. Other antivirus software may exhibit similar behavior, so the workaround I am about to describe may help. How do you detect the problem? Two ways: either or both of the following happen: 1) the antivirus reports a threat has been trapped, and/or 2) you never see the installation menus, but only see the erroneous message the software was activated. The workaround I use is to briefly turn off Avast shields, then I launch the Setup. Usually, the Setup/Installation software starts, but before I let the Installation proceed, I turn the Avast shields back on. That way, if the installation of the software has a virus or threat, Avast has a chance to trap it. It is very, very rare that the target software itself triggers an Avast alert. If it does, I abort the installation. Plan B is to try to download the source software from the vendor IF it is available. Today, only version 19, not 18, is avail. Hope this helps... (Thanks, GTOD and vendors, for your hard work, and for the ability for us to access so many kinds of free software!)

Ferds, It still does what it needs to, a top notch program!

Ferds, although it does lack a few features that exist in the latest release version one could look at cup half full instead of cup half empty... there is greater possibility that all the features that are in this version are potentially more stable and had all the major bugs ironed out before the project went to then versions development phase...

TK, but sadly I was wrongly giving the developer the benefit of the doubt as the installer is very buggy and poorly designed which does not bode well for the program itself.