3 ms·

We've spent many hours evaluating different backup services -- we're specifically looking for one with a partner program that's appropriate for our business. T

We've spent many hours evaluating different backup services -- we're specifically looking for one with a partner program that's appropriate for our business. The good news is, most services now (claim to) offer encryption as part of their basic package. For Mac users, Carbonite does seem to be the best service available. For Windows users, I'd recommend SpiderOak, who are cheaper in most cases than other services, and they seem to offer a reasonably good client program. For potential resellers, in our opinion there just isn't a good one available yet. We hadn't found CrashPlan though, and so far it looks promising.

sreitshamer 17y ago
The problem IMHO is that the encryption is just that -- a "claim". You can't access your data on their servers, so you can't verify it. You can use your own password, but there's no way to verify it's being used. Backblaze's blog http://tr.im/BPfR http://tr.im/BPfR for instance says that "IT" has access to my data without knowing my password.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  One of the advantages (and disadvantages) to CrashPlan, for service providers, is that it allows you to run their server software on your own infrastructure. But yes, I agree with you otherwise. I'd much rather trust cperciva with data, but unfortunately his system lacks some critical features for our uses.
  - cperciva 17y ago
    I'd much rather trust cperciva with data, but unfortunately his system lacks some critical features for our uses. If you haven't already done so, please send me an email listing the lacking features which you find critical. I can't guarantee that I'll add them, but it's always useful to know how many people need what features.
cperciva 17y ago
The good news is, most services now (claim to) offer encryption as part of their basic package. Yet they still make n00b mistakes like "we recommend that you use the built-in encryption key (which everybody who downloads the client software has access to)". And when they don't announce their mistakes publicly, they still don't provide enough technical details (e.g., cipher block mode) to confirm that they're not making dumb mistakes behind the scenes. (It doesn't help when people refuse to make source code available, of course.)

sreitshamer 17y ago

The problem IMHO is that the encryption is just that -- a "claim". You can't access your data on their servers, so you can't verify it. You can use your own password, but there's no way to verify it's being used. Backblaze's blog http://tr.im/BPfR http://tr.im/BPfR for instance says that "IT" has access to my data without knowing my password.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
One of the advantages (and disadvantages) to CrashPlan, for service providers, is that it allows you to run their server software on your own infrastructure. But yes, I agree with you otherwise. I'd much rather trust cperciva with data, but unfortunately his system lacks some critical features for our uses.
- cperciva 17y ago
  I'd much rather trust cperciva with data, but unfortunately his system lacks some critical features for our uses. If you haven't already done so, please send me an email listing the lacking features which you find critical. I can't guarantee that I'll add them, but it's always useful to know how many people need what features.

cperciva 17y ago

The good news is, most services now (claim to) offer encryption as part of their basic package. Yet they still make n00b mistakes like "we recommend that you use the built-in encryption key (which everybody who downloads the client software has access to)". And when they don't announce their mistakes publicly, they still don't provide enough technical details (e.g., cipher block mode) to confirm that they're not making dumb mistakes behind the scenes. (It doesn't help when people refuse to make source code available, of course.)