Encrypted folder on mounted drive reports wrong file sizes

Bug Reporting Windows Desktop
#1

Issue: files copied to the encrypted folder on mounted drive initially report their correct size but later (within minutes) report an incorrect size. The file content is unchanged and files copied back have the correct size and content locally.

This is problematic as comparison tools that check the size (whether only size or requiring a size match before proceeding to check content) will mark the same local and mounted files as different.

This is using the Windows desktop app, v2.68, to mount the drive. This issue is occurring on both Windows 10 Pro (21H2) and Windows Server 2008 Standard.

Reported size always seems to be offset by a small amount (positive or negative) from the actual size but the offset may not be consistent between different files.

For example this image soon reported a size of 29536 bytes when placed in the Encrypted folders but its actual size is 29494 bytes, a delta of +42 bytes.

am i broken

While this one soon reported a size of 21840 bytes when placed in the Encrypted folders but its actual size is 21808 bytes, a delta of +32 bytes.

4232295

Opening the files sometimes corrects the reported size… temporarily.

Please let me know if you are unable to reproduce the issue and/or require further details.

#3

Thanks Anon, yes file sizes would show a little different after encryption adding a few bytes. Opening the file would then in reality download the file, decrypt it and then show as a preview thus temporarily displaying the original file size.

#4

I too find this to be problematic although we want the files encrypted. Are there options we can explorer together? I am not fully knowledgeable about encryption. Are there parameters where I can encrypt my local file to mimic encryption so they match?

#5

Thankyou. Given a feature of Icedrive is that “everything” including folder and file names are encrypted client-side before being sent, would it be practical to fix this by having the sizes be included as well in the file system data?

#6

Thanks for the suggestion @Shane, I’ll pass this on to our dev team for consideration.

1 Like
#7