Hello,
My remote is just the local encrypted backup:
rclone copy --checksum --log-file="C:\rclone\log.txt" "G:\ServerFolders\albums" secret:local
After I use the check option:
rclone check --log-file="C:\rclone\log.txt" "G:\ServerFolders\albums" secret:local
I got in log:
11941 hashes could not be checked
Why the the checking cannot be e performed?
How to avoid this problem in the future? Is there some option in my above copy instruction missing?
Thank you in advance.
I had the same question but I found this note in the page http://rclone.org/crypt/
Hashes are not stored for crypt. However the data integrity is protected by an extremely strong crypto authenticator.
I read this in the past at least two times - but I did not notice it. I think not too carefully
Thanks a lot.
Howdy,
You folks might be interested to know about a ticket currently open on rclone's GIT issue tracker that, when implemented, will support hashes for encrypted files and much else besides:
You might want to subscribe to that issue to keep yourselves posted about its progress.
Cheers,
Durval.
Hello,
when the new file name encryption will be implemented?
What then? Will I have to re-encrypt and re-upload the backup to start using it?
Hello zhup,
when the new file name encryption will be implemented?
What then? Will I have to re-encrypt and re-upload the backup to start using it?
I think (unless someone else is working on this) only @ncw knows 
Seriously, monitor the issue for changes. But I wouldn’t hold my breath as to “when”, and on the “how” side I’d say it’s pretty much undefined.
Durval.
I’m not working on it at the moment… However I’m expending background cycles working out how to do it!
What will be the consequences of this file name encryption change?
Will I have to re-encrypt and re-upload the backup to start using it?
I’d like to think there will be a way to upgrade an existing encrypting installation.
Encryption is essential, and if this process will have a big change I do not know if I still should use rclone or just wait for final decisions.
Howdy @ncw,
I’m not working on it at the moment… However I’m expending background cycles working out how to do it!
Thanks for the update. For me (now that I migrated to Google Drive, which has proper mtime and no silly filename size limits), the major benefit of implementing issue 637 would be exactly the ability to verify MD5 without needing to download the entire file.
Durval.