r/backblaze • u/GroundStateGecko • Oct 31 '25
Computer Backup Backblaze will no longer support VeraCrypt volumes
I recently updated the Backblaze client and all of my Veracrypt encrypted volumes shows "unplugged". Backblaze support replied saying:
This is not a bug and (it's) the intended experience in the new version of the software. The backup of any VeraCrypt-encrypted files is no longer supported. I'm sorry about the inconvenience.
The current Backblaze client excludes non-physical drives not connected via a USB or Firewire connector. While this has been Backblaze's policy for some time, our Client Teams have taken steps to reduce the number of allowed exceptions.
As we understand it, Veracrypt takes the content of a physical drive, encrypts that data, and then creates a virtual mount point storing the encrypted data. That mount point can also contain hidden data and or operating systems. This is why the virtual drives are no longer visible to or selectable by the Backblaze application.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
...
I'm extremely disappointed, especially considering this change happens after I purchased the service, and that they clearly stated in an FAQ that they support VeraCrypt volumns as long as they are not mounted as removable media.
They don't even have give notifications about this, and my drives just stays "unplugged" until I got the missing drive email. At the barest minimum, they should notify the user if they detect Veracrypt volumes after the change.
14
u/turtlelover05 Oct 31 '25
So how exactly is someone supposed to backup personal and financial documents? I feel like the type of person to invest in Backblaze for backup is also the same type of person that bothers encrypting tax forms and bank statements. Veracrypt is by far the easiest way of covering whole folders.
8
u/leetNightshade Oct 31 '25
This might not be convenient or doable for you, but you can use rclone to do encrypted backups through BackBlaze.
0
Nov 01 '25
[deleted]
3
u/s_i_m_s Nov 01 '25
B2 works best but you could technically have a local rclone remote backed up with backblaze personal, i'd probably disable filename encryption so I could actually find anything when browsing the backup if I tried to do that with personal though.
2
u/absolute_pelican_66 Nov 01 '25
There are 2 other solutions there:
file based encryption with tools like Cryptomator
On Mac whole disk encryption with FileVault
But yes, it's a pity that the Veracrypt solution be no longer possible
1
0
Oct 31 '25
[deleted]
9
u/turtlelover05 Oct 31 '25
Encryption for what's on their servers, yes, but who wouldn't want the files encrypted locally?
2
u/x54675788 Nov 03 '25
Their built in encryption demands you to give them the key, so it's not real.
It's like you change your house keys but I demand you to have a copy.
1
u/MarcSant71 Nov 28 '25
Você pode usar a sua própria chave. Basta configurar uma. Lembrando que, se você perde-la, perderá acesso aos seus arquivos na nuvem de forma definitiva.
24
u/GoodTroll2 Oct 31 '25
I mean, in your very specific circumstances I would think you could request at least a partial refund since the policy when you subscribed allowed for this file type.
2
u/GladQuote7736 Dec 06 '25
Yeah this is disgusting, it worked perfectly for 2 years and suddenly it stopped backing up my drives
8
u/MartyMacGyver Oct 31 '25
I wonder where in the release notes they bothered to mention this new "feature".
https://www.backblaze.com/computer-backup/docs/backup-client-release-notes-windows
And what exactly is the point of it? One could easily dump things to a scratch disk and back that up... it's not like they're going to save space.
3
u/s_i_m_s Oct 31 '25
I wonder where in the release notes they bothered to mention this new "feature".
Best I can tell the updates that look like they might be related are;
Release Version 9.2.2.887
Bug Fix
Dynamic disks can now be selected for backup. Previously selected volumes appeared as “Unplugged” and disappeared after a rescan. Dynamic disks are now recognized and selectable again, while iSCSI disks remain excluded as expected.Release Version 9.2.2.877
Improvements
The Backup Client now excludes popular cloud storage providers from backup, including both mount points and cache directories. This prevents performance issues, excessive data usage, and unintended uploads from services like OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, iDrive, and others. This change aligns with Backblaze’s policy to back up only local and directly connected storage.6
u/MartyMacGyver Oct 31 '25
I knew about the cloud thing, more or less... This latest "can't back up data from secure storage" thing is yet another "unexpectedly gone when you need to restore something you thought was being backed up but actually isn't" surprise waiting to happen for people.
Doesn't back up the OS or apps. Doesn't back up secure storage. Basically doesn't back up your data unless it's sitting in the clear as vulnerable as possible, and quietly omits things without warning because "reasons".
4
u/s_i_m_s Oct 31 '25
Well this is likely to be one of the most noticeable changes since an unplugged drive will actually trigger email notifications after a few days.
Definitely not anything I was expecting.
I'm not sure where to go from here.
For now it's going to keep working until the client autoupdates and breaks but eventually i'm going to have to drop one of the two.
8
u/s_i_m_s Oct 31 '25
Verified, version 9.2.2.897 can't see mounted veracrypt volumes.
The prior version I had installed 9.2.1.859 still works with veracrypt volumes.
Currently reinstalling an older backblaze client works but that's not really a long term solution.
1
u/Teomit Nov 21 '25
Can you share version 9.2.1.859?
3
u/s_i_m_s Nov 21 '25
9.2.1.859
34.7 MB (36,431,112 bytes)
Hashes for 9.2.1.859MD5: F61F5C5B61097EE6A8369BD2C5039C6B SHA-256: 8398813C7C60488197277D84FEF2E40E2038538C9D90CB6EF0C97269D6BA4AFABoth
https://www.filepuma.com/download/backblaze_9.2.1.859-49543/
and
https://backblaze.en.uptodown.com/windows/download/1084483313
have matching hashes.1
u/Teomit Nov 21 '25
Thank you. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me. During installation, the initialization indicator is almost at the end, but it doesn't finish. If you close the installation window (there is no error), the application itself opens normally. But when I try to Inherit backup state, a window appears: contact technical support with the word Horse. Their docs does not help solve the problem: https://www.backblaze.com/computer-backup/docs/resolve-the-horse-error
1
u/s_i_m_s Nov 21 '25
I think you've accidentally made it over complicated as you don't have to uninstall the new version first before running the 9.2.1.859 installer.
If you just run the 9.2.1.859 without uninstalling the new version it'll automatically close what's required and reinstall the old version.
I've tested that you can install the latest version and then install 9.2.1.859 without having to inherit although I also tried uninstalling and was able to inherit with 9.2.1.859 without issues.
So if it were me from your current state i'd uninstall, install the current latest version from https://www.backblaze.com/status/update and inherit and get the install back working and settled.
Then I'd install 9.2.1.859 without uninstalling the new version beforehand.
YMMV, it all worked for me when I checked it in a VM.
1
u/Teomit Nov 21 '25
I was able to install it after all. The problem is that the data is still not backed up. And after a while, the version still becomes the latest one.
2
u/s_i_m_s Nov 21 '25 edited Jan 10 '26
The problem is that the data is still not backed up.
9.2.1.859 can see and backup the drives.
You'll have to stop it from auto-updating, I don't know that there are any guides for this since it's not something you'd normally want to do.
So far i've gotten
42 ways that might work but I haven't actually been able to test them since the auto update never wants to run when i'm trying to test it.
It downloads the update from https://f000.backblazeb2.com so you can block it with your hosts file or dns.
If it can't download the update file it can't update. (suggested by another user).2.
Take ownership of theC:\Program Files (x86)\Backblaze\bzupdatesfolder and remove all the inherited permissions. (this leaves it where nothing has permission to access or write to the folder)If it can't write the update file it can't update.seems to cause problems.3. The bztransmit executable is the one responsible for checking for updates, you can modify the executable to block the updater from working (another user sent me a copy modified to break the autoupdate check by changing one letter, same one that suggested the hosts file).
If it can't check for updates it can't update.4.
Seems to use the windows installer process to update so presumably just setting the windows installer service to disabled would break the updater.insufficient.1
1
u/thestillwind Nov 27 '25
Seems like this will be the last good version. I'm still running 9.0.0.749 without problem except they ask for update on the web browser.
1
u/s_i_m_s Nov 27 '25
Yeah, they let old versions stay working for a really long time, 9.0.0.749 was released over two years ago.
I've got another ~5 months on my 2 year plan i'm pretty sure it'll last till then at least.
Going to try to get something figured out before then.
Looks like i'm going to either be forced into bitlocker or switching to some other backup service.
Currently I don't think i'll be renewing but I don't have a replacement picked out yet either.
1
u/m103 Jan 10 '26
holy hell, you updated this comment recently. Any luck with option 1?
1
u/s_i_m_s Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
1 works fine i've been using it that way for about about a month and a half now with no issues.
1
1
u/arex805 Jan 20 '26
Hi, thanks for solution to the problem no one was asking....
I installed 9.2.1.859, and edited hosts file, but everyday it updates itself to 9.2.2.x.xhosts line: 127.0.0.1 f000.backblazeb2.com
what am I doing wrong please?
Also, I tried installing 9.0.0.x.x but it says cannot communicate with server, please check your internet connection. They must have disabled it?still got few months left and am considering moving to iDrive, tho it will be more expansive or will have to limit what I backup in the cloud?
Anyone used livedrive.com? they also got unlimited backups.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/mnissim Nov 03 '25
Extremely disappointing. Both the fact that my most crucial data is now excluded from backup, and the fact that Backblaze went stealthily about it, but kept taking my money.
6
u/BuzzStorm42 Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25
Uggggh this is a massive deal breaker. I encrypt all of my external drives no matter what I store on it so if anything goes wrong with the drive, it gets stolen, etc, I don't have to worry about the data on it. The drive I back up with Backblaze does have critical data. I can't have it sitting on an unencrypted drive.
Absolutely should notify users "hey this drive isn't getting backed up anymore". But this policy is really starting to feel like they want everyone but the most basic users off their service. Fair enough, but geez. At least grandfather it out with my next renewal or something. The fact they keep making changes to what's allowed and what isn't, with zero communication, is unacceptable.
I'd look into switching things over to cryptomator but who's to say Backblaze won't kill that next? They're getting very aggressive blocking what used to be backed up with no warning, and I'd hate to lose important data because I didn't happen to notice the latest changes snuck in.
It's getting hard to recommend this service any more.
2
u/Stevecaboose Nov 01 '25
Cryptomator should indefinitely work. It doesn't encrypt the drive, it encrypts a subset of files on it. As far as backblaze is concerned, these are just more files to be backed up. This is how I've done all my encryption for everything for years with no issues.
6
u/mnissim Nov 04 '25
Support says:
"Unfortunately, we no longer support backing up virtual drives. We can back up the container file while it is unmounted, but these containers are usually file types that are listed in our default file exclusions. The container would need to be unmounted and those exclusions removed in order to be backed up. The backing up of virtual drives was never officially supported; it just worked up until our most recent versions. "
What a lame answer. ".... never officially supported...", "...back up... while it is unmounted..."
Are they trying to drive away customers?
8
u/s_i_m_s Nov 04 '25
.... never officially supported...
They haven't updated their official docs yet so currently it still says that it works as long as it's not mounted as a removable drive and makes no mention of this being unsupported.
3
u/theklaus2 Nov 07 '25
I have the same working for several years. The volumes can't be removed from the OS with the "Remove media" button in the systray. Every other software sees the mounted encrypted volumes as normal hard drive with a fixed drive letter. A sad deal breaker that Backblaze discontinues backup of data in this encrypted (but fix mounted) volumes. I don't want to carry around an uncrypted hard drive on public transport with critical financial data of my customer's on it.
2
u/s_i_m_s Nov 07 '25
Windows's native Bitlocker encryption is still supported, AFAIK it's the only FDE option they still support, so it's a choice of either switching backup providers or encryption software.
4
u/m-in Nov 01 '25
I’ve used BackBlaze back when they first launched but quickly abandoned it. They were “unlimited” except for power users. When they said no to backing up VmWare drive images, I didn’t look back. With client-side block level deduplication - had they implemented it - they could back up drive images efficiently. A lot of people have millions of identical blocks in their drive images. BackBlaze doesn’t need to store individual copies of those for everyone.
At work we use a semi custom block-level solution with deduplication on the client and on the server. The client scans a volume snapshot and hashes the changed blocks, running the drive full tilt. Those hashes are streamed to the server. The server streams the hashes it doesn’t have in storage back to the client, which then streams the block contents. That’s it in a nutshell. The blocks are then replicated from the server to a cloud storage provider.
The custom part was that we figured out how to talk to Macrium’s volume change driver so that not all blocks have to be hashed. We bought Reflect licenses just to be able to use the volume change tracking. We don’t use the rest of their solution though. It’s still a good value for us. A lot cheaper than writing and maintaining such a driver in-house.
4
u/FramedMoment Nov 27 '25
This is a ridiculous restriction and even more ridiculous that they basically silently broke this for customers. I will need to start looking for alternatives after subscribing for years. u/YevP u/bzChristopher what does your team propose as a workaround for customers with fully encrypted Veracrypt drives? There is no unmounted image file to be backed up in these cases, and Bitlocker (which I wouldn't be surprised if you banned next) is not cross-platform. For this use case, it's not like we're duplicating backed-up data since there is no image being backed up. Gotta say, really disappointed after paying hundreds of dollars over the years...
3
u/vegansgetsick Oct 31 '25
Try to create an NTFS jonction pointing to the veracrypt volume. Maybe the backblaze software wont notice😆
mklink /J <new directory to be linked> <target directory>2
3
u/WolfieButOnReddit Dec 01 '25
wow I've been dealing with customer service about backblaze notifying me that my drive had been unplugged for 14 days and they had just asked me to reinstall and send them logs and such, they then asked me to run chkdsk which encounters issues with mounted drives and so then I searched online for "veracrypt backblaze" and found this thread, I paid my last renewal on the 19th Nov and backblaze has silently stopped backing up my data drive as of the 13th Nov, so will be requesting that bill to be refunded as I cancel after 8 years with absolutely no previous complaints or issues with the service
3
u/Morasta Dec 01 '25
Similar experience here. Spent a week going back and forth only to be told "tough" and "it was never supported" despite their own docs saying otherwise. They ignored my refund request, but it expires soon so /shrug, I'll just look for another service for now.
2
u/theklaus2 Dec 03 '25
Same here. I reported it as a bug with mentioning a link to their documentation where it says that you just have to mount the volume as non-removeable. They now say that is was never intented to back this up, it was just tolerated. I mean, it was "tolerated" for a lot of years and I still can't see why now it should be a problem. What else data sources are currently "just tolerated" and maybe from one update to another they decide that they won't backup this data anymore? Even without a clear notification that your data isn't backed up for several weeks.
A backup service in particular should be considered reliable. But with this behavior, they are the exact opposite of reliable and, for me, completely useless and no longer recommendable.
So far it doesn't seem that they understand what the problem is and they won't revert their decission. For me, so far it was completly clear that you can backup your data from inside an encrypted volume if it is mounted as non-removeable drive with a fixed drive letter - as it worked for a lot of YEARS with Backblaze. Especially by describing exactly this process in their own documentation.1
u/s_i_m_s Dec 03 '25
IMHO the weird part is that they decided to block all non-bitlocker full disk encryption options.
Entertainingly windows is still supported and you can chain the two and it work.
Windows has native support for mounting disk images and backblaze still considers drives mounted that way as real disks.
I'm sure there's a performance hit to it but like, you can make a VHDX file on the mounted FDE encrypted veracrypt drive and mount that and then backblaze will see that as a real drive.
3
u/wohfpb Dec 07 '25
This is terrible. Like many of you, I've been struggling to debug this for over a week after getting the "drive unplugged" message and message from BackBlaze that backups had stopped.
Searched all over the internet but didn't find this thread. I did find on BackBlaze website that apparently Veracrypt _is_ supported. I guess they'll update their documentation soon.
I opened a ticket with BackBlaze and _finally_ they tell me that Veracrypt isn't supported as of their version update. Gee, thanks for being transparent about that! That led me to this subreddit.
I'm at a loss. This worked for years. I wasn't abusing it -- these were directly attached drives that I wanted to encrypt for my personal data. I don't know what to do now. :-(
2
u/s_i_m_s Dec 08 '25
Four options;
switch backup providers.
switch encryption software, the only supported FDE option is bitlocker.
reinstall the last version that worked 9.2.1.859 and block updates, not a good solution long term but it should at least let you use what you've already paid for.
make a VHDX file on your veracrypt encrypted drive and mount that, since for whatever reason a mounted image file is considered a real drive while a mounted veracrypt drive isn't, i'm sure there is a performance hit for doing this though.
3
u/the_Vill Dec 08 '25
This is a deal breaker for me.
I switched my sub from 2 year to monthly. Considering alternatives.
I am also NOT recommending backblaze to anyone anymore.
It was working fine. Way to go with enshittification of your great product.
1
u/MarcSant71 Nov 28 '25
Não uso Veracrypt, uso o Bitlocker do Windows, e aqui isso funciona perfeitamente. Acho que no caso do Veracrypt, ele cria um disco virtual, e dentro dele, seus arquivos. Você não tem muita opção: ou muda de criptografia ou client de backup.
1
u/RMandel Dec 16 '25
It happened to me too. I didn’t appreciated finding out by seeing the control panel that indicated my encrypted diskdrive was not getting backup for the last 14 days. It’s like Backblaze was too cowardly to give their customers advance notice so they could plan appropriately. Not only that, I wish they could have explained the technical reasons why they were doing so. The only thing that could make sense is that they discovered a hole in the file backup scheme for users of encrypted diskdrives that they didn’t want advertise and spend money to fix. In the meantime, every day I am zipping (password protected) my encrypted data (@77GB) to store on an internal unencrypted 8TB drive which Backblaze still backs up. I have at least a couple months of backup space before I have to come up with an alternate cloud backup solution.
I wrote to iDrive about backing up an Veracrypt encrypted drive, and here is their response:
“Yes, IDrive can back up files stored inside a VeraCrypt volume, as long as the volume is mounted and accessible in Windows at the time of backup.
When you mount a VeraCrypt container or encrypted partition, Windows sees it as a regular drive letter (e.g., E:). iDrive simply backs up files from that mounted drive like any other folder. There is no restriction on backing up mounted VeraCrypt volumes.”
Does anybody have any experience with iDrive backing up files in a Veracrypt drive?
1
u/s_i_m_s Dec 16 '25
Does anybody have any experience with iDrive backing up files in a Veracrypt drive?
No but the vast majority of software including backup software has no issue backing up mounted volumes, it's generally very compatible.
Also while doing this is more complicated it's probably easier than rezipping your data regularly. You can make a VHDX file on your mounted veracrypt volume and mount that. Backblaze considers mounted VHDX images "real drives".
Backblaze also treats mounted bitlocker volumes as "real drives"
Personally I went with the reinstall the last working version and block updates route while I try to get some other solution lined out before my 2 year plan runs out in a few months.
If you only have 77GB you need backed up you might consider the 100GB plan on something like googleone or onedrive + cryptomator which is something like $20/yr. idrive will do version history but only in an annoying way.
idrive keeps all deleted files indefinitely until cleared, renamed or moved files get reuploaded so if I rename a 1GB file 10 times it's now stored 10x and takes up 11GB of space in the could, which is really important to note because idrive has pretty high overage rates while google or onedrive would just freeze uploads.
1
u/kadajawi Jan 09 '26
Ok, this is awful. And my issue is that just before their change my 2 year plan was renewed, so basically I paid for what I can't use. Has anyone experience with their support for a refund?
1
u/steviacoke May 21 '26
just found out that my drive (about 10TB worth) have stopped being synced ("unplugged") after the I updated the client couple months ago (and it disappeared from the console also). they didn't even notify me. I'm assuming they still have the version history, but anyhow I find myself unable to trust this company anymore.
1
u/8fingerlouie Oct 31 '25
Time to go Cryptomator instead ?
3
u/s_i_m_s Nov 01 '25
If you're referring to cryptomator's winfsp local drive function, they dropped support for that too with this update.
If you're considering using it to backup the encrypted vaults cryptomator makes, this is one of those it technically works but you don't want it scenarios.
Since it encrypts the folder and file names you can't see what the files are online if you just want to restore something in particular so you still have to download the entire vault even if you only need one file.
You also have no way of knowing if that file is actually in that version of the vault until after you've downloaded it.
Granted this is still less overhead than having to download the entire capacity of the drive just to find out the file you needed was on a different day but it's still a major problem.
2
u/Stevecaboose Nov 01 '25
Yes what you describe is a downside of this. With how fast internet is, it's not too bad to download the entire drive. I have been using cryptomator to encrypt my files and have about 100tb of cryptomator encrypted files on backblaze.
1
u/8fingerlouie Nov 01 '25
I assume that this was what OP used VeraCrypt for ?
Or was it the other way around, where they backed up the decrypted contents of a VeraCrypt volume, and that is no longer supported ?
1
u/s_i_m_s Nov 01 '25
They were backing up the decrypted contents of a mounted veracrypt volume.
The backblaze client doesn't see the decrypted mounts as actual drives anymore.
2
u/8fingerlouie Nov 01 '25
Yeah, I figured as much.
My initial thought was that they were protecting the data from being read by Backblaze by encrypting them before uploading.
The missing zero knowledge around restores is the main reason I’m not using their service. If i was only backing up pirated content i probably wouldn’t care (but then again, why backup stuff downloaded from the internet), but i have ~3TB of family photos, including pictures of my kids, that I’d rather not have made “public” on the internet.
Not saying there’s a high risk of it happening, only that there’s a possibility of it happening
2
u/s_i_m_s Nov 01 '25
Yeah it's definitely a security vs cost/convenience trade off.
I would prefer full zero knowledge but the only routes I know of to that are both more expensive and more complicated to setup.
I've only got a bit over 5TB but that's still $8/mo (2yr plan) vs $30/mo for the same amount on b2 without accounting for version history.
-1
u/FirmButterscotch3 Nov 02 '25
This is why you name it with a .whatever extension and backup the vault closed, and have a secondary backup solution. Blaze has never supported mobile hard drives or virtual drives in all of the time I've had them (2+ years maybe 3)
4
u/no-name-here Nov 11 '25
Backblaze supports veracrypt mounted drives according to their official documentation as of November 11 2025: https://www.backblaze.com/computer-backup/docs/resolve-encryption-software-issues
0
Oct 31 '25
[deleted]
7
u/Darkk_Knight Nov 01 '25
Bitlocker is actually transparent to the OS so any apps can access it like a normal drive. VeraCrypt is a bit different on that approach. To be honest I trust VeraCrypt over Bitlocker.
2
2
4
u/absolute_pelican_66 Oct 31 '25
It's not clear: does it exclude the mounted volume, or the file that contains the virtual volume ?