Safemails.Net vs Microsoft & Gmail
A comprehensive comparison of quantum-safe email encryption solutions
Microsoft vs Safemails.Net
Point-by-point comparison of encryption capabilities
1. Quantum Strong Email Encryption with Keys Generated by Quantum Computer
🔒
Safemails.Net
- ✅ Uses true quantum random number generators (QRNG) for key material
- ✅ Implements quantum-safe algorithms (SHAKE256, AES-256-GCM-SIV)
- ✅ Designed to resist future quantum computer attacks
- ✅ Ephemeral keys generated fresh for each message using quantum entropy
📧
Microsoft
- ❌ No quantum-based key generation
- ❌ Uses traditional cryptography vulnerable to quantum attacks (RSA, certificates, Azure RMS)
- ❌ Relies on classical encryption algorithms that would be broken by sufficiently powerful quantum computers
- ⚠️ No documented quantum-safe migration path
Verdict:
Safemails.Net has a clear advantage in quantum security. Microsoft's encryption would be compromised by quantum computers in the future.
2. Multi-Channel Device Onboarding Process (Email/SMS/Viber)
🔒
Safemails.Net
- ✅ Requires verification through multiple independent channels (email + SMS/app)
- ✅ Device fingerprinting must match across channels
- ✅ Out-of-band confirmation prevents man-in-the-middle attacks
📧
Microsoft
- ❌ OME: Single channel only (one-time passcodes, Microsoft accounts)
- ❌ S/MIME: Certificate-based, no multi-channel verification
- ❌ No device fingerprinting or cross-channel verification
Verdict:
Microsoft uses simpler single-channel authentication. Safemails.Net's multi-channel approach provides stronger identity verification and prevents account compromise scenarios.
3. Decryption Only by Onboarded and Authorized Devices
🔒
Safemails.Net
- ✅ Every device must be explicitly registered and approved
- ✅ Master device controls which devices can access emails
- ✅ Real-time quantum challenge-response required for each decryption
- ✅ Devices can be de-authorized/revoked
📧
Microsoft
- ❌ OME: Any device can access messages using one-time passcode or account login
- ⚠️ S/MIME: Certificate-based but doesn't restrict specific devices
- ❌ No concept of device authorization or approval workflow
- ❌ Anyone with account credentials can decrypt from any device
Verdict:
Microsoft does not offer device-level security. Safemails.Net provides granular device control - critical for scenarios where account credentials might be compromised.
4. Easy Integration with Sender Devices by Plugin Technology
🔒
Safemails.Net
- ✅ Plugin-based integration
- ✅ Designed for easy deployment without system changes
- ✅ Works alongside existing email infrastructure
📧
Microsoft
- ⚠️ OME: Requires Microsoft 365 subscription and administrative configuration
- ⚠️ IRM: Administrators must set up transport rules or Outlook protection rules
- ❌ Tightly integrated with Microsoft ecosystem - difficult to use with non-Microsoft email systems
- ❌ Requires organizational IT involvement for setup
Verdict:
Mixed comparison. Microsoft's solutions require deeper integration and administrative setup. Safemails.Net's plugin approach may be simpler for organizations not already using Microsoft 365, but Microsoft provides seamless integration for existing Microsoft customers.
5. Recipient Decrypts Emails Without Installing Software or Typing Passwords
🔒
Safemails.Net
- ✅ Browser-based decryption after initial device onboarding
- ✅ No software installation required after onboarding
- ✅ Device fingerprint handles authentication automatically
- ✅ Quantum challenge-response is transparent to user
📧
Microsoft
- ✅ OME: Recipients can view encrypted messages without a Microsoft 365 subscription
- ✅ OME: Browser-based portal available
- ⚠️ OME: Requires entering one-time passcode or logging into Microsoft account each time
- ❌ S/MIME: Requires email client with S/MIME support and certificate management
Verdict:
Both offer browser-based access for some scenarios. Safemails.Net has the edge with passwordless access after device onboarding, while Microsoft OME requires repeated passcode entry or account login. However, Microsoft's S/MIME and IRM require more technical setup.
Overall Comparison Summary: Microsoft
| Feature | Safemails.Net | Microsoft | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum-safe encryption | ✅ | ❌ | Safemails |
| Multi-channel onboarding | ✅ | ❌ | Safemails |
| Device-specific authorization | ✅ Strict | ❌ None (OME) | Safemails |
| Easy integration | ✅ Plugin | ⚠️ Admin setup | Safemails |
| Passwordless recipient access | ✅ After onboarding | ⚠️ Passcode each time | Safemails |
Gmail vs Safemails.Net
Point-by-point comparison of encryption capabilities
1. Quantum Strong Email Encryption with Keys Generated by Quantum Computer
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ True end-to-end encryption for all users (personal and business)
- ✅ Keys derived using Quantum Random Number Generators (QRNG)
- ✅ Uses quantum-resistant algorithms (SHAKE256, AES-256-GCM-SIV)
- ✅ No RSA/ECC - immune to Shor's algorithm attacks from quantum computers
📧
Gmail
- ❌ Gmail uses TLS by default to encrypt connections when messages travel between email servers, but this is not end-to-end encryption
- ❌ With hosted S/MIME, messages are encrypted and decrypted using keys hosted within Google - Google can read your emails
- ❌ Uses traditional cryptography vulnerable to quantum computers
- ❌ No quantum-generated keys
Verdict:
Safemails.Net has a clear advantage in quantum security. Gmail's encryption would be compromised by quantum computers in the future.
2. Multi-Channel Device Onboarding Process (Email/SMS/Viber)
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ Multi-channel verification required for master device onboarding
- ✅ Confirmation via SMS/app push and email confirmation on target device
- ✅ Device fingerprinting across both channels
- ✅ New devices require explicit approval from master device
📧
Gmail
- ❌ Standard username/password login
- ❌ Optional 2FA via SMS, authenticator apps, or security keys
- ❌ No device-specific onboarding or verification process
- ❌ Any device with your password can access emails
Verdict:
Gmail uses simpler single-channel authentication. Safemails.Net's multi-channel approach provides stronger identity verification and prevents account compromise scenarios.
3. Decryption Only by Onboarded and Authorized Devices
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ Device fingerprinting - each device must be explicitly onboarded
- ✅ Quantum challenge-response authentication before each decryption
- ✅ Master device must approve all new devices
- ✅ Compromised password alone cannot grant access without onboarded device
📧
Gmail
- ❌ Gmail uses TLS which encrypts the connection when messages travel between email servers, but emails sit unencrypted on Gmail servers
- ❌ Any device that logs into your Gmail account can read all emails
- ❌ No device-level access control
- ❌ Even with CSE, device management is enterprise IT-controlled, not user-controlled
Verdict:
Gmail does not offer device-level security. Safemails.Net provides granular device control - critical for scenarios where account credentials might be compromised.
4. Easy Integration with Sender Devices by Plugin Technology
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ Plugin/integration works with existing Gmail and Outlook accounts
- ✅ No need to change email providers or addresses
- ✅ Transparent to existing workflows
📧
Gmail
- ✅ Native Gmail interface for all users
- ❌ For S/MIME: You need an eligible work or school account and your administrator must enable S/MIME for your organization
- ❌ Requires IT department involvement and certificate management
- ❌ Complex setup for enterprise encryption
Verdict:
Mixed comparison. Gmail solutions require deeper integration and administrative setup. Safemails.Net's plugin approach is simpler with plugin.
5. Recipient Decrypts Emails Without Installing Software or Typing Passwords
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ Recipients don't need to install anything and can easily access encrypted emails through a secure web link
- ✅ Frictionless for recipients - just click link, verify device once
- ✅ After initial device onboarding (one-time), decryption is automatic
- ✅ No passwords needed for decryption (device fingerprint + quantum challenge handles authentication)
📧
Gmail
- ❌ Recipients must have Gmail accounts or compatible email clients
- ❌ For S/MIME: To either sign or receive S/MIME-encrypted emails, you need to have a valid S/MIME certificate from a trusted root
- ❌ Recipients need technical setup and certificates
- ❌ Complex for non-technical users
Verdict:
Both offer browser-based access for some scenarios. Safemails.Net has the edge with passwordless access after device onboarding.
6. No Need to Buy Additional Software or Hardware
🔒
Safemails
- ✅ Works with existing email accounts (no new email service needed)
- ✅ No hardware tokens or security keys required
- ✅ Offers "FREE Email Security Starter Kit"
- ✅ Device fingerprinting is software-based (no additional hardware)
📧
Gmail
- ❌ Free TLS encryption (but not end-to-end)
- ❌ S/MIME requires paid Google Workspace accounts (starting ~$6-12/user/month)
- ❌ Certificate authorities may charge for S/MIME certificates
- ❌ May require security keys for 2FA (~$25-50 per key)
Verdict:
Safemails - Cost-effective solution vs expensive enterprise requirements
Overall Comparison Summary: Gmail
| Feature | Safemails.Net | Gmail | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum-safe encryption | ✅ | ❌ | Safemails |
| Multi-channel onboarding | ✅ | ❌ | Safemails |
| Device-specific authorization | ✅ Strict | ❌ None | Safemails |
| Easy integration | ✅ Plugin | ⚠️ Admin setup | Safemails |
| Passwordless recipient access | ✅ After onboarding | ⚠️ Passcode each time | Safemails |
| Recipient Ease | ✅ Just click link | ❌ Needs certificates/accounts | Safemails |
The Real Differentiator
Gmail and Outlook protect emails during transmission but don't offer true end-to-end encryption by default from sender to recipient email box.
Safemails addresses this fundamental limitation while making enterprise-grade quantum-resistant encryption accessible to everyone - not just large organizations with dedicated IT security teams. The combination of quantum-safe cryptography, device-level trust, and frictionless user experience sets it apart from Gmail's and Outlook traditional approach.