5 ms·

This is my biggest concern with the Dropbox platform summed up in the filing: * Our business could be damaged, and we could be subject to liability if there is

This is my biggest concern with the Dropbox platform summed up in the filing: * Our business could be damaged, and we could be subject to liability if there is any unauthorized access to our data or our users’ content, including through privacy and data security breaches. They have made progress. They managed to get SoC II compliance for all of their offerings. They now offer HIPAA compliant hosting as well. Not that long ago though (circa 2013) I remember a series of articles that made it clear that DropBox employees had access to customer data. That spooked me enough to recommend folks pair it with https://www.sookasa.com/ https://www.sookasa.com/ if they were going to use it.

nugget 9y ago
For a single user with no need to share access, you can also just stick everything in a VeraCrypt vault stored on Dropbox. Dropbox seems pretty good at updating only the parts of the vault that have changed, versus the entire (sometimes huge) vault file. I've heard OneDrive updates the entire vault file every time, although I haven't experimented with it myself.
- varenc 9y ago
  Dropbox's client uploads binary diffs to make updates to things like your VeraCrypt value efficient. Using a modified librsync last I heard. Sounds like OneDrive is missing this feature. https://www.dropbox.com/help/syncing-uploads/upload-entire-file https://www.dropbox.com/help/syncing-uploads/upload-entire-f... https://github.com/dropbox/librsync https://github.com/dropbox/librsync
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
varenc 9y ago
Dropbox, GDrive, Box, OneDrive, etc. aren't using zero-knowledge encryption, so it must be technically feasible for them to access user data. If a company has a forgotten password reset feature, it's a good sign that it's possible for them to access your data. You have to trust the company providing the service, right? Of course in practice, accessing user data should be tightly controlled and require good business reasons and levels of approval. Zero-knowledge alternatives like Spideroak exist, but this approach makes them sacrifice features. (and doesn't appear very popular based on market share)
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  It's not as black and white as all that. In the early days, it was probably a trivial operation for any employee to examine any customer's dropbox content. Hopefully these days the prod machines and backups.are walled from all but a rotating team of SREs, whose own actions on them are subject to audit.
nine_k 9y ago
I wonder how spideroak.com compares.
andrenotgiant 9y ago
The point of that section of an S-1 is to try and disclose every possible risk so that investors can't accuse you of hiding risks later on. So, when quoted out of context it sounds really extreme.
gwbas1c 9y ago
Early at my days at Syncplicity, (a Dropbox competitor,) I specked out what was needed for true client-side encryption with no ability to decrypt on the server. It's very easy to do, from a technical standpoint. (We solve the problem by letting our large customers run their own servers, with their own authentication via single sign on.) The problem is that the user experience for client-side encryption is awful! Every shared folder will need its own key, and users would need to manage and share their keys outside of our system. That is not sustainable. But then the major feature set breaks down. Want to access your files in a browser? Not with client-side encryption. Want to email someone a hyperlink to a file? Not with client side encryption. The major lesson is that the world operates on trust. We can only stay in business if our customers trust us.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > The problem is that the user experience for client-side encryption is awful! Every shared folder will need its own key, and users would need to manage and share their keys outside of our system. That is not sustainable. But then the major feature set breaks down. Want to access your files in a browser? Not with client-side encryption. Want to email someone a hyperlink to a file? Not with client side encryption. I do all of this with Boxcryptor. I might be misunderstanding you - do you mean decrypt it without first downloading it from the browser? Because yes, that’s not strictly possible. But Boxcryptor implements a small wrapper around directories and generates a public/private key pair tied to email addresses. You can client-side encrypt a file with your - or anyone else’s - public key by moving the file into the directory. You can also change the file’s encryption to add or revoke access by multiple users. If you wrap Boxcryptor around your local Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, etc. directory, it automatically client-side encrypts, then uploads new files. Then you can share a hyperlink to share encrypted files without exchanging keys with anyone. The usability is so great I’ve been able to use this with non-technical clients. You can even use your own key pairs.
- diggs 9y ago
  There's also no deduplication with client-side encryption.
  - 9y ago

nugget 9y ago

For a single user with no need to share access, you can also just stick everything in a VeraCrypt vault stored on Dropbox. Dropbox seems pretty good at updating only the parts of the vault that have changed, versus the entire (sometimes huge) vault file. I've heard OneDrive updates the entire vault file every time, although I haven't experimented with it myself.

varenc 9y ago
Dropbox's client uploads binary diffs to make updates to things like your VeraCrypt value efficient. Using a modified librsync last I heard. Sounds like OneDrive is missing this feature. https://www.dropbox.com/help/syncing-uploads/upload-entire-file https://www.dropbox.com/help/syncing-uploads/upload-entire-f... https://github.com/dropbox/librsync https://github.com/dropbox/librsync
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

varenc 9y ago

Dropbox, GDrive, Box, OneDrive, etc. aren't using zero-knowledge encryption, so it must be technically feasible for them to access user data. If a company has a forgotten password reset feature, it's a good sign that it's possible for them to access your data. You have to trust the company providing the service, right? Of course in practice, accessing user data should be tightly controlled and require good business reasons and levels of approval. Zero-knowledge alternatives like Spideroak exist, but this approach makes them sacrifice features. (and doesn't appear very popular based on market share)

mikepurvis 9y ago
It's not as black and white as all that. In the early days, it was probably a trivial operation for any employee to examine any customer's dropbox content. Hopefully these days the prod machines and backups.are walled from all but a rotating team of SREs, whose own actions on them are subject to audit.

nine_k 9y ago

I wonder how spideroak.com compares.

andrenotgiant 9y ago

The point of that section of an S-1 is to try and disclose every possible risk so that investors can't accuse you of hiding risks later on. So, when quoted out of context it sounds really extreme.

gwbas1c 9y ago

Early at my days at Syncplicity, (a Dropbox competitor,) I specked out what was needed for true client-side encryption with no ability to decrypt on the server. It's very easy to do, from a technical standpoint. (We solve the problem by letting our large customers run their own servers, with their own authentication via single sign on.) The problem is that the user experience for client-side encryption is awful! Every shared folder will need its own key, and users would need to manage and share their keys outside of our system. That is not sustainable. But then the major feature set breaks down. Want to access your files in a browser? Not with client-side encryption. Want to email someone a hyperlink to a file? Not with client side encryption. The major lesson is that the world operates on trust. We can only stay in business if our customers trust us.

dsacco 9y ago
> The problem is that the user experience for client-side encryption is awful! Every shared folder will need its own key, and users would need to manage and share their keys outside of our system. That is not sustainable. But then the major feature set breaks down. Want to access your files in a browser? Not with client-side encryption. Want to email someone a hyperlink to a file? Not with client side encryption. I do all of this with Boxcryptor. I might be misunderstanding you - do you mean decrypt it without first downloading it from the browser? Because yes, that’s not strictly possible. But Boxcryptor implements a small wrapper around directories and generates a public/private key pair tied to email addresses. You can client-side encrypt a file with your - or anyone else’s - public key by moving the file into the directory. You can also change the file’s encryption to add or revoke access by multiple users. If you wrap Boxcryptor around your local Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, etc. directory, it automatically client-side encrypts, then uploads new files. Then you can share a hyperlink to share encrypted files without exchanging keys with anyone. The usability is so great I’ve been able to use this with non-technical clients. You can even use your own key pairs.
diggs 9y ago
There's also no deduplication with client-side encryption.
- 9y ago