Reasons:

- Not full-disk encryption. Leaks metadata: file sizes, file name
  lengths.

- Poor audit results: no authentication (i.e. attacker can write
  encrypted data but not read), incosistent use of IVs, use of
  insecure hash algorithms like MD5.

- Current labeling system highlights eCryptfs with green "audited"
  sign, misleading our readers into thinking it's the best choice
  in the category, while the opposite is true.

- If user wants to have an encrypted data overlay, e.g. to sync
  with untrusted cloud service (Dropbox, Google Drive, rsync.org)
  they can use Cryptomator.

> eCryptfs appears to have a better crypto design than EncFS, but
> there are some red flags indicating that it was not designed by
> a cryptographer, and has not received enough security review. It
> should be safe to use, but more auditing would be a good idea.