Given budget and flexibility, I would say that TrueCrypt will give you some of the best options, especially since you'll have external parties adding files to the server.
TrueCrypt is easy to setup, and has many options for configuration, and won't require a whole lot in the way of key management, or client installations. Rather than encrypt by file or folder, create an encrypted file-based volume and store the items there that need to be encrypted. PGP is good, but expensive, and I'd wait to see what Symantec was doing with them before investing in that direction. EFS is already paid for, and can be managed by group policy, but with external parties being involved, it will take more work to configure properly. -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Chris Blair <chris_bl...@identisys.com>wrote: > First off, we are running a Windows 2003 Native Active Directory. There > are no plans, or funds to move up to 2008. > > > > We have an upcoming project that will require a location on our file server > that encrypts folders and documents stored there. This project could last > only a year, or up to 5, all depends on its success. The files will be > uploaded from Outside customers, either via VPN or SFTP. > > > > I am looking at EFS, True Crypt or PGP. > > > > Anyone have opinions on which to use and why? > > > > Thanks! > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
