11 ms·

Transfer.sh – File sharing from the command line

260 points by nilsocket 8y ago

Rjevski 8y ago
They really should’ve used some end to end encryption to protect themselves against DMCA bullshit. As it stands they will be abused for copyright infringement and the rights holders will not only ask for the files to be taken down, but for them to preemptively prevent those same files from being uploaded again. A huge rabbit hole full of bullshit.
- nilsocket 8y ago
  Indeed yes, but files were hosted for 14 days.
  - jgrahamc 8y ago
    I would be much more concerned about people using this site for the transfer of illegal material (such as child abuse imagery). That's something literally any file sharing/image hosting site has to deal with. The 14 day limit won't make a difference as people disseminating that type of material are likely used to having to move it around frequently.
    - gorbypark 8y ago
      I built a proof of concept project that was a lot like transfer.sh at one point in time. My solution was to not only have a time limit but a download limit as well. I'd guess most people transferring files from the command line want to transfer something from one machine to another, or maybe to a few other machines. I was going to allow a transfer limit of 10 transfers before the file/link went dead, which would hopefully deter most nefarious people using it to widely spread files around..
      - vageli 8y ago
        Unless you are storing hashes, what would prevent someone from writing a script that simply reuploads the file to your service after downloading? That would increase the share limit.
        tafycent 8y ago
        Let's say you generate the identifier for the upload based on the file hash. If you add a timestamp or random nonce then they'll have to redistribute the link to the file every time they re-upload as it will change every time.
        gorbypark 8y ago
        Exactly. Nothing would stop someone from re-uploading it, but they'd end up with a different url which would go dead pretty quick if used to share something publicly.
    - goatsi 8y ago
      This is a real problem for people hosting filesharing services. Depending on who abuse material gets reported to you might not even be told to remove it, you might just get raided. https://fuwafuwa.moe/nr/freeme/ https://fuwafuwa.moe/nr/freeme/
- coatmatter 8y ago
  This is the first thing I was wondering about as far as what the intended/eventual use-case of this tool is. The website and GitHub page doesn't go into a lot of detail for what it's intended to replace. If I'm not confusing matters, in the past people might have sent files to each other by dropping stuff off in an ftp directory, or they might have used DirectConnect to host files up, or even Windows file sharing / samba. If it were designed to be used within a local network on the other hand between untrusted users, it might make more sense but I think there would then also be simpler ways to go about that?
runj__ 8y ago
Wow! I've been looking for something like this since forever! scp really doesn't cut it for servers only accessible from other whitelisted servers.
- pmorici 8y ago
  That’s what the SSH ProxyCommand configuration directive is for.
jedisct1 8y ago
Or use Piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik
amarant 8y ago
if you happen to be on the same network, airpaste is pretty neat too: https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste
unhammer 8y ago
On a related note, I recently learnt that if you're on the same local network, there's a much faster way to transfer than the old tar|nc trick[0]: udpcast. You do $ udp-sender --min-receivers 1 --full-duplex --pipe 'tar czvf - theDirectory' on the sender and $ udp-receiver --pipe 'tar xzp' and at least on my home network it's 11x faster than tar|nc. There are some caveats[1] about udp not working well everywhere, and you may have to open ports 9000 and 9001 and of course it's not encrypted at all, but for copying large ISO's and such when you can't find your usb stick it's great. Just remember to compare checksums afterwards. [0] http://www.spikelab.org/blog/transfer-largedata-scp-tarssh-tarnc-compared.html http://www.spikelab.org/blog/transfer-largedata-scp-tarssh-t... [1] https://superuser.com/questions/692294/why-is-udcast-is-many-times-faster-than-netcat https://superuser.com/questions/692294/why-is-udcast-is-many...
- userbinator 8y ago
  Just remember to compare checksums afterwards. Preferably a cryptographic hash... UDP is known for not being reliable at all, and that's partly why it's so fast --- the sender doesn't care whether the packets reached the receiver, it just sends as fast as it can.
  - Filligree 8y ago
    CRC is fine in this case. Oh, they should use SHA anyway because why not, but CRC is only vulnerable to deliberate manipulation or exceedingly abstruse bit-flips. When the failure mode is lost packets, it's perfectly fine.
  - mbrumlow 8y ago
    Well sort of. The sender will in a lot (most) of cases care, its the protocol (UDP) that has no automatic checking, or reporting. This sort of stuff is left up to the programmer. The power of UDP allows the sender to have more control on things like how often transmissions are are acknowledged (tcp window size), or how to handle delays or errors. There are also some advantages because middle boxes who try to be smart and "make TCP" better for you can't really muck with the UDP packets all that much because the applications own protocol of how to handle UDP packets will not likely be know. This is why QUIC is such a big deal -- as a lot of the type of things a middle box might want to -- and do on TCP today -- muck around with are encrypted. So I would not say that UDP is fast because it is not reliable, it is fast because it can allow a programmer to exploit the network in a more efficient way than TCP can for a specific type of data being transferred. There are many reliable UDP based protocols that achieve faster speeds than TCP in different situations.
robert_foss 8y ago
Personally I've been using magic wormhole lately. It's p2p and very easy to use. https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole
- Mashimo 8y ago
  I could not find an example on the gibhub page, but here is the timecode from a video that shows it in action: https://youtu.be/oFrTqQw0_3c?t=129 https://youtu.be/oFrTqQw0_3c?t=129 Also: https://magic-wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html#example https://magic-wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html... Looks neat.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I love magic wormhole, you give the recipient three words and a number and the file is sent peer-to-peer. No messing about with routing or anything.
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    How is it for getting around weird networks (double NAT, etc)?
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      It's been great every time I've used it, I think it has a relay server as a last resort if it can't get a p2p connection. Never had problems with it.
    - deathanatos 8y ago
      > The library depends upon a “rendezvous server”, which is a service (on a public IP address) that delivers small encrypted messages from one client to the other. This must be the same for both clients, and is generally baked-in to the application source code or default config. > This library includes the URL of a public rendezvous server run by the author. Application developers can use this one, or they can run their own (see the https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole-mailbox-server https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole-mailbox-server repository) > For now, bulk data is sent through a “Transit” object, which does not use the Rendezvous Server. Instead, it tries to establish a direct TCP connection from sender to recipient (or vice versa). If that fails, both sides connect to a “Transit Relay”, a very simple Server that just glues two TCP sockets together when asked. If I understand the docs correctly, it always uses a centralized server to establish the transfer. Once the transfer is established, it'll attempt to transfer the files directly, if possible, but if not, it'll fall back to using a relay. And so many people are trapped behind NAT these days, I don't know that the need for this will be all that unusual.
amelius 8y ago
Can it have a little more security please? E.g. longer filename, more difficult to guess. And an encryption option would be nice.
- petee 8y ago
  Well it seems you'd have to not only guess the file name, but also the 5 character code; as it appears its uppercase, lower and numbers, which is ~916 million possibilities ...although on second thought, and with some bad math, if you know the file name, and you can manage 750+ tries a second, you could brute it prior to the 14 day expiration.
  - derimagia 8y ago
    Hopefully they use something akin to fail2ban..
- fiatjaf 8y ago
  Stop complaining and encrypt your stuff. You're the one making absurd requests to a fine small nice service here.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Not every feature request or suggestion is "complaining" or "absurd", even if it isn't worded perfectly.
- c4h8o3del 8y ago
  gpg2 --armor --output my-file.tar.gz.gpg -e my-file.tar.gz && curl --upload-file ./my-file.tar.gz.gpg https://transfer.sh https://transfer.sh
- robalfonso 8y ago
  I'd think the ability to set the file to delete after X downloads instead of 14 days would be useful.
- coatmatter 8y ago
msravi 8y ago
woof -i <ip_address> -p <port> <filename> woof: http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/woof.html http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/woof.html 1. Allows directory upload/download (tar/gzip/bzip2 compressed) 2. Local file server (doesn't go over the internet) 3. Allows upload form (-U option) 4. Allows file to be served <count> number of times (-c option)
- auscompgeek 8y ago
  Another alternative for simply serving your current directory which you probably already have: python3 -m http.server or python2 -m SimpleHTTPServer
- filleduchaos 8y ago
  HN still doesn't realize that devs are not the only people in the world, more at 11.
jy3 8y ago
Of course it's written in Go. It's amazing to see the language embraced that much for server side apps.
- kim0 8y ago
  Static binaries are magic :)
  - aryamaan 8y ago
    Could you please go into details like what's basic difference b/w static binaries and apps which use dynamic linking. What are the benefits of one over another? Something like grokking this concept for once and all :D
    - vageli 8y ago
      For illustrative purposes, you could think of a static binary kind of like a Docker container. Like a container, within the binary is all of its dependencies, meaning that you are free to install conflicting libraries on the system. If you use dynamically linked binaries, you rely on the system to have the version of the library you need, and hope that your reliance on those libraries does not break other applications which may rely on different versions of those libs. Static == everything you need bundled up Dynamic == relies on libraries present on the host to provide aspects of functionality
    - creeble 8y ago
      Simplest explanation I can think of: Static binaries have no dependencies. They should just run and not bark about missing (shared/dynamic) libraries, nor require you to install them. Of course, even static binaries rely on some basic level of compatibility; typically system-level things that don't change much. Dynamically-linked binaries have the potential to create a massive dependency graph that can hard or even impossible (for a given o/s installation) to traverse.
      - kikoreis 8y ago
paol 8y ago
Have used it before. Works well.
dwelch2344 8y ago
Wrap it in a `keybase encrypt ...` and it's a pretty solid solution
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alexgvozden 8y ago
I love using this for simple transfers I need from computer to server
danielecook 8y ago
How is it free?
- amelius 8y ago
  Because it's not massively used yet.
telesilla 8y ago
I had this problem yesterday, misplaced USB drive and needing to do a large transfer. https://www.sharedrop.io https://www.sharedrop.io to the rescue.
jchook 8y ago
Upload all your files to our internet web server for FREE!!1
shawn 8y ago
I prefer magic-wormhole. pip install magic-wormhole wormhole send foo.tar.gz Bonus: the files are e2e encrypted. Still, transfer.sh is hard to beat for flexibility. Magic-wormhole requires that users install something.
amelius 8y ago
I sometimes get such links in my email box. Then when I browse my email months later, I can't use the links :( I wish tools such as this one would automatically incorporate the downloaded files into my email history somehow.
rockymadden 8y ago
I made a minimal bash CLI for transfer.sh, since I regularly interact with it. Nothing you couldn't do by hand, but it makes it easier to do some operations. Uploading directories, encryption/decryption, piping, etc. https://github.com/rockymadden/transfer-cli https://github.com/rockymadden/transfer-cli
ktm5j 8y ago
I like it! But for me ssh already provides a simple and secure way to move files from one place or another.. tar -cf - ./files.txt ./orDir/ | ssh host "(cd /dest/dir; tar -xf -)" Given that ssh it so ubiquitous I think this will always be my go to.
- Giroflex 8y ago
  What about good old scp? scp file.txt user@host:/dest/dir/
  - alex_young 8y ago
    Or rsync? rsync -zvh file.txt user@host:/dest/dir/ So many ways to do this :)
    - coatmatter 8y ago
      rsync has always been my favourite because it makes the most sense to me (and the --help/man page is easy to read). rsync -n -avh --progress source destination:~/asdf/ for a dry run followed by ctrl-p, ctrl-a, alt-f, alt-d, alt-d to remove the -n flag and then execute that for the real thing. Occasionally though, I'll also use sftp if I'm just pulling one thing - perhaps even after sshing to the remote machine. For all of these, SSH keys should be set up (and desktop logins secured) to make life easier. As for Android, adb push and adb pull -a seems to work better than mtp:// or AirDroid in my experience.
      - LukeShu 8y ago
        After all these years, I still can't keep straight when I need a trailing slash in rsync, and when I need to not have it.
        coatmatter 8y ago
        If you think of it in terms of archives and whether you want to "extract" into the current directory, or a new directory within the current one; that might help. rsync source destination will plonk the entire source directory and put it inside destination as a neat bundle. rsync source/ destination will take the contents of source (but not the directory source itself) and plonk it in destination I found the info page a little dry but it does describe it succintly: rsync -av /src/foo /dest rsync -av /src/foo/ /dest/foo For some reason though, my head freaks out when it sees "foo" and "bar", but all they're saying is that it does the same thing. If in doubt though, just chuck everything into the destination ~/temp/ or ~/asdf/ and sort it out later. To be honest though, most of the time I just use fish shell's autosuggestions to guide me along.
xwvvvvwx 8y ago
ipfs add <file> works remarkably well in my experience.
spurgu 8y ago
What about deleting? If you accidentally upload your porn folder and notice it just after sharing the link with someone.
- grenoire 8y ago
  Sharing is caring!
qrv3w 8y ago
There are so many tools that can transfer files between two computers. I really like ones like this because you don't have to have SSH access or forward any ports to send a file from A to B. Its similar vein to other peer-to-peer utilities like zget [1], sharedrop [2], instant.io (webtorrent) [3], filepizza (webtorrent) [4], magic-wormhole [5], toss [6], dat [7], and many many others. During Hacktoberfest I also started my own, written in Go, so I could have my friends can use it without installing a Python ecosystem [8]. [1]: https://github.com/nils-werner/zget https://github.com/nils-werner/zget [2]: https://github.com/cowbell/sharedrop https://github.com/cowbell/sharedrop [3]: https://github.com/webtorrent/instant.io https://github.com/webtorrent/instant.io [4]: https://github.com/kern/filepizza https://github.com/kern/filepizza [5]: https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole [6]: https://github.com/zerotier/toss https://github.com/zerotier/toss [7]: https://github.com/datproject/dat https://github.com/datproject/dat [8]: https://github.com/schollz/croc https://github.com/schollz/croc
- jedisct1 8y ago
  https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik
- gabamnml 8y ago
  Is not the same. With this service you do not need to have anything installed in both the sender and the receiver. So you can use it to move files to a server, send a link to a friend who does not know how to use a terminal. Very practical
- nneonneo 8y ago
  Shameless plug: I wrote ffsend (https://github.com/nneonneo/ffsend https://github.com/nneonneo/ffsend) to interact with the Firefox Send experiment (send.firefox.com). With this, you can upload a file which is end-to-end encrypted (i.e. it is uploaded encrypted, and only you have the key), and accessed via a simple URL that you can share with your receiver. FF Send files last for 24 hours, and you can configure the number of downloads allowed from 1 to 20. The maximum filesize is around 2 GiB. The reason I wrote ffsend is that the official site loads the entire file into memory in order to en/decrypt it, but my script is able to stream the en/decryption and thus significantly reduce memory usage.
devilsenigma 8y ago
There's https://send.firefox.com/ https://send.firefox.com/ as well. Backed by Mozilla.
NVRM 8y ago
Btw, many unix files explorer can connect to many remote servers via ssh. Unless x less of course. All is integrated, local programs can read and edit those files as regular, drag and drop, folder, permissions with right click. I use the shell a lot, but remote bookmarks are wizardry!
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  And of course there is always sshfs
htor 8y ago
scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp
presto8 8y ago
Fiche is another solution, based on netcat (nc): https://github.com/solusipse/fiche https://github.com/solusipse/fiche
red_admiral 8y ago
There used to be a service called chunk.io that did this. Then, presumably by some combination of becoming popular causing them bandwidth/storage issues or their service being abused, they had to make it invitation-only. (The site still exists, but they never replied to my e-mail to their signup address, so I can't say for sure if they're still live or not.) I wish transfer.sh good luck, and will bookmark them for now as "the new chunk.io". EDIT: note, as not all comments comparing this to SSH seem to have picked it up - this is a service where you can upload a file, get a link and e-mail the link to someone. You don't need to have any special software (such as sshd) running on the download side.
- int0x80 8y ago
  There are multiple sites like this. I dont know the size limits (I just upload small stuff) etc but here are a few I use: http://ix.io http://ix.io https://ptpb.pw https://ptpb.pw
cjhanks 8y ago
I keep seeing these pop up over and over, and I think most I have seen use a rendezvous that is also an I/O relay. A reliable UDP with a rendezvous server would allow for much more scalable P2P transfer. Unfortunately, I haven't found one implemented like this...

260 points by nilsocket 8y ago

They really should’ve used some end to end encryption to protect themselves against DMCA bullshit. As it stands they will be abused for copyright infringement and the rights holders will not only ask for the files to be taken down, but for them to preemptively prevent those same files from being uploaded again. A huge rabbit hole full of bullshit.

nilsocket 8y ago
Indeed yes, but files were hosted for 14 days.
- jgrahamc 8y ago
  I would be much more concerned about people using this site for the transfer of illegal material (such as child abuse imagery). That's something literally any file sharing/image hosting site has to deal with. The 14 day limit won't make a difference as people disseminating that type of material are likely used to having to move it around frequently.
  - gorbypark 8y ago
    I built a proof of concept project that was a lot like transfer.sh at one point in time. My solution was to not only have a time limit but a download limit as well. I'd guess most people transferring files from the command line want to transfer something from one machine to another, or maybe to a few other machines. I was going to allow a transfer limit of 10 transfers before the file/link went dead, which would hopefully deter most nefarious people using it to widely spread files around..
    - vageli 8y ago
      Unless you are storing hashes, what would prevent someone from writing a script that simply reuploads the file to your service after downloading? That would increase the share limit.
      - tafycent 8y ago
        Let's say you generate the identifier for the upload based on the file hash. If you add a timestamp or random nonce then they'll have to redistribute the link to the file every time they re-upload as it will change every time.
        gorbypark 8y ago
        Exactly. Nothing would stop someone from re-uploading it, but they'd end up with a different url which would go dead pretty quick if used to share something publicly.
  - goatsi 8y ago
    This is a real problem for people hosting filesharing services. Depending on who abuse material gets reported to you might not even be told to remove it, you might just get raided. https://fuwafuwa.moe/nr/freeme/ https://fuwafuwa.moe/nr/freeme/
coatmatter 8y ago
This is the first thing I was wondering about as far as what the intended/eventual use-case of this tool is. The website and GitHub page doesn't go into a lot of detail for what it's intended to replace. If I'm not confusing matters, in the past people might have sent files to each other by dropping stuff off in an ftp directory, or they might have used DirectConnect to host files up, or even Windows file sharing / samba. If it were designed to be used within a local network on the other hand between untrusted users, it might make more sense but I think there would then also be simpler ways to go about that?

runj__ 8y ago

Wow! I've been looking for something like this since forever! scp really doesn't cut it for servers only accessible from other whitelisted servers.

pmorici 8y ago
That’s what the SSH ProxyCommand configuration directive is for.

jedisct1 8y ago

Or use Piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik

amarant 8y ago

if you happen to be on the same network, airpaste is pretty neat too: https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste

unhammer 8y ago

On a related note, I recently learnt that if you're on the same local network, there's a much faster way to transfer than the old tar|nc trick[0]: udpcast. You do $ udp-sender --min-receivers 1 --full-duplex --pipe 'tar czvf - theDirectory' on the sender and $ udp-receiver --pipe 'tar xzp' and at least on my home network it's 11x faster than tar|nc. There are some caveats[1] about udp not working well everywhere, and you may have to open ports 9000 and 9001 and of course it's not encrypted at all, but for copying large ISO's and such when you can't find your usb stick it's great. Just remember to compare checksums afterwards. [0] http://www.spikelab.org/blog/transfer-largedata-scp-tarssh-tarnc-compared.html http://www.spikelab.org/blog/transfer-largedata-scp-tarssh-t... [1] https://superuser.com/questions/692294/why-is-udcast-is-many-times-faster-than-netcat https://superuser.com/questions/692294/why-is-udcast-is-many...

userbinator 8y ago
Just remember to compare checksums afterwards. Preferably a cryptographic hash... UDP is known for not being reliable at all, and that's partly why it's so fast --- the sender doesn't care whether the packets reached the receiver, it just sends as fast as it can.
- Filligree 8y ago
  CRC is fine in this case. Oh, they should use SHA anyway because why not, but CRC is only vulnerable to deliberate manipulation or exceedingly abstruse bit-flips. When the failure mode is lost packets, it's perfectly fine.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  Well sort of. The sender will in a lot (most) of cases care, its the protocol (UDP) that has no automatic checking, or reporting. This sort of stuff is left up to the programmer. The power of UDP allows the sender to have more control on things like how often transmissions are are acknowledged (tcp window size), or how to handle delays or errors. There are also some advantages because middle boxes who try to be smart and "make TCP" better for you can't really muck with the UDP packets all that much because the applications own protocol of how to handle UDP packets will not likely be know. This is why QUIC is such a big deal -- as a lot of the type of things a middle box might want to -- and do on TCP today -- muck around with are encrypted. So I would not say that UDP is fast because it is not reliable, it is fast because it can allow a programmer to exploit the network in a more efficient way than TCP can for a specific type of data being transferred. There are many reliable UDP based protocols that achieve faster speeds than TCP in different situations.

robert_foss 8y ago

Personally I've been using magic wormhole lately. It's p2p and very easy to use. https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole

Mashimo 8y ago
I could not find an example on the gibhub page, but here is the timecode from a video that shows it in action: https://youtu.be/oFrTqQw0_3c?t=129 https://youtu.be/oFrTqQw0_3c?t=129 Also: https://magic-wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html#example https://magic-wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html... Looks neat.
StavrosK 8y ago
I love magic wormhole, you give the recipient three words and a number and the file is sent peer-to-peer. No messing about with routing or anything.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  How is it for getting around weird networks (double NAT, etc)?
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    It's been great every time I've used it, I think it has a relay server as a last resort if it can't get a p2p connection. Never had problems with it.
  - deathanatos 8y ago
    > The library depends upon a “rendezvous server”, which is a service (on a public IP address) that delivers small encrypted messages from one client to the other. This must be the same for both clients, and is generally baked-in to the application source code or default config. > This library includes the URL of a public rendezvous server run by the author. Application developers can use this one, or they can run their own (see the https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole-mailbox-server https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole-mailbox-server repository) > For now, bulk data is sent through a “Transit” object, which does not use the Rendezvous Server. Instead, it tries to establish a direct TCP connection from sender to recipient (or vice versa). If that fails, both sides connect to a “Transit Relay”, a very simple Server that just glues two TCP sockets together when asked. If I understand the docs correctly, it always uses a centralized server to establish the transfer. Once the transfer is established, it'll attempt to transfer the files directly, if possible, but if not, it'll fall back to using a relay. And so many people are trapped behind NAT these days, I don't know that the need for this will be all that unusual.

amelius 8y ago

Can it have a little more security please? E.g. longer filename, more difficult to guess. And an encryption option would be nice.

petee 8y ago
Well it seems you'd have to not only guess the file name, but also the 5 character code; as it appears its uppercase, lower and numbers, which is ~916 million possibilities ...although on second thought, and with some bad math, if you know the file name, and you can manage 750+ tries a second, you could brute it prior to the 14 day expiration.
- derimagia 8y ago
  Hopefully they use something akin to fail2ban..
fiatjaf 8y ago
Stop complaining and encrypt your stuff. You're the one making absurd requests to a fine small nice service here.
- detaro 8y ago
  Not every feature request or suggestion is "complaining" or "absurd", even if it isn't worded perfectly.
c4h8o3del 8y ago
gpg2 --armor --output my-file.tar.gz.gpg -e my-file.tar.gz && curl --upload-file ./my-file.tar.gz.gpg https://transfer.sh https://transfer.sh
robalfonso 8y ago
I'd think the ability to set the file to delete after X downloads instead of 14 days would be useful.
coatmatter 8y ago

msravi 8y ago

woof -i <ip_address> -p <port> <filename> woof: http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/woof.html http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/woof.html 1. Allows directory upload/download (tar/gzip/bzip2 compressed) 2. Local file server (doesn't go over the internet) 3. Allows upload form (-U option) 4. Allows file to be served <count> number of times (-c option)

auscompgeek 8y ago
Another alternative for simply serving your current directory which you probably already have: python3 -m http.server or python2 -m SimpleHTTPServer
filleduchaos 8y ago
HN still doesn't realize that devs are not the only people in the world, more at 11.

jy3 8y ago

Of course it's written in Go. It's amazing to see the language embraced that much for server side apps.

kim0 8y ago
Static binaries are magic :)
- aryamaan 8y ago
  Could you please go into details like what's basic difference b/w static binaries and apps which use dynamic linking. What are the benefits of one over another? Something like grokking this concept for once and all :D
  - vageli 8y ago
    For illustrative purposes, you could think of a static binary kind of like a Docker container. Like a container, within the binary is all of its dependencies, meaning that you are free to install conflicting libraries on the system. If you use dynamically linked binaries, you rely on the system to have the version of the library you need, and hope that your reliance on those libraries does not break other applications which may rely on different versions of those libs. Static == everything you need bundled up Dynamic == relies on libraries present on the host to provide aspects of functionality
  - creeble 8y ago
    Simplest explanation I can think of: Static binaries have no dependencies. They should just run and not bark about missing (shared/dynamic) libraries, nor require you to install them. Of course, even static binaries rely on some basic level of compatibility; typically system-level things that don't change much. Dynamically-linked binaries have the potential to create a massive dependency graph that can hard or even impossible (for a given o/s installation) to traverse.
    - kikoreis 8y ago

paol 8y ago

Have used it before. Works well.

dwelch2344 8y ago

Wrap it in a `keybase encrypt ...` and it's a pretty solid solution

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

alexgvozden 8y ago

I love using this for simple transfers I need from computer to server

danielecook 8y ago

How is it free?

amelius 8y ago
Because it's not massively used yet.

telesilla 8y ago

I had this problem yesterday, misplaced USB drive and needing to do a large transfer. https://www.sharedrop.io https://www.sharedrop.io to the rescue.

jchook 8y ago

Upload all your files to our internet web server for FREE!!1

shawn 8y ago

I prefer magic-wormhole. pip install magic-wormhole wormhole send foo.tar.gz Bonus: the files are e2e encrypted. Still, transfer.sh is hard to beat for flexibility. Magic-wormhole requires that users install something.

amelius 8y ago

I sometimes get such links in my email box. Then when I browse my email months later, I can't use the links :( I wish tools such as this one would automatically incorporate the downloaded files into my email history somehow.

rockymadden 8y ago

I made a minimal bash CLI for transfer.sh, since I regularly interact with it. Nothing you couldn't do by hand, but it makes it easier to do some operations. Uploading directories, encryption/decryption, piping, etc. https://github.com/rockymadden/transfer-cli https://github.com/rockymadden/transfer-cli

ktm5j 8y ago

I like it! But for me ssh already provides a simple and secure way to move files from one place or another.. tar -cf - ./files.txt ./orDir/ | ssh host "(cd /dest/dir; tar -xf -)" Given that ssh it so ubiquitous I think this will always be my go to.

Giroflex 8y ago
What about good old scp? scp file.txt user@host:/dest/dir/
- alex_young 8y ago
  Or rsync? rsync -zvh file.txt user@host:/dest/dir/ So many ways to do this :)
  - coatmatter 8y ago
    rsync has always been my favourite because it makes the most sense to me (and the --help/man page is easy to read). rsync -n -avh --progress source destination:~/asdf/ for a dry run followed by ctrl-p, ctrl-a, alt-f, alt-d, alt-d to remove the -n flag and then execute that for the real thing. Occasionally though, I'll also use sftp if I'm just pulling one thing - perhaps even after sshing to the remote machine. For all of these, SSH keys should be set up (and desktop logins secured) to make life easier. As for Android, adb push and adb pull -a seems to work better than mtp:// or AirDroid in my experience.
    - LukeShu 8y ago
      After all these years, I still can't keep straight when I need a trailing slash in rsync, and when I need to not have it.
      - coatmatter 8y ago
        If you think of it in terms of archives and whether you want to "extract" into the current directory, or a new directory within the current one; that might help. rsync source destination will plonk the entire source directory and put it inside destination as a neat bundle. rsync source/ destination will take the contents of source (but not the directory source itself) and plonk it in destination I found the info page a little dry but it does describe it succintly: rsync -av /src/foo /dest rsync -av /src/foo/ /dest/foo For some reason though, my head freaks out when it sees "foo" and "bar", but all they're saying is that it does the same thing. If in doubt though, just chuck everything into the destination ~/temp/ or ~/asdf/ and sort it out later. To be honest though, most of the time I just use fish shell's autosuggestions to guide me along.

xwvvvvwx 8y ago

ipfs add <file> works remarkably well in my experience.

spurgu 8y ago

What about deleting? If you accidentally upload your porn folder and notice it just after sharing the link with someone.

grenoire 8y ago
Sharing is caring!

qrv3w 8y ago

There are so many tools that can transfer files between two computers. I really like ones like this because you don't have to have SSH access or forward any ports to send a file from A to B. Its similar vein to other peer-to-peer utilities like zget [1], sharedrop [2], instant.io (webtorrent) [3], filepizza (webtorrent) [4], magic-wormhole [5], toss [6], dat [7], and many many others. During Hacktoberfest I also started my own, written in Go, so I could have my friends can use it without installing a Python ecosystem [8]. [1]: https://github.com/nils-werner/zget https://github.com/nils-werner/zget [2]: https://github.com/cowbell/sharedrop https://github.com/cowbell/sharedrop [3]: https://github.com/webtorrent/instant.io https://github.com/webtorrent/instant.io [4]: https://github.com/kern/filepizza https://github.com/kern/filepizza [5]: https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole [6]: https://github.com/zerotier/toss https://github.com/zerotier/toss [7]: https://github.com/datproject/dat https://github.com/datproject/dat [8]: https://github.com/schollz/croc https://github.com/schollz/croc

jedisct1 8y ago
https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik https://github.com/jedisct1/piknik
gabamnml 8y ago
Is not the same. With this service you do not need to have anything installed in both the sender and the receiver. So you can use it to move files to a server, send a link to a friend who does not know how to use a terminal. Very practical
nneonneo 8y ago
Shameless plug: I wrote ffsend (https://github.com/nneonneo/ffsend https://github.com/nneonneo/ffsend) to interact with the Firefox Send experiment (send.firefox.com). With this, you can upload a file which is end-to-end encrypted (i.e. it is uploaded encrypted, and only you have the key), and accessed via a simple URL that you can share with your receiver. FF Send files last for 24 hours, and you can configure the number of downloads allowed from 1 to 20. The maximum filesize is around 2 GiB. The reason I wrote ffsend is that the official site loads the entire file into memory in order to en/decrypt it, but my script is able to stream the en/decryption and thus significantly reduce memory usage.

devilsenigma 8y ago

There's https://send.firefox.com/ https://send.firefox.com/ as well. Backed by Mozilla.

NVRM 8y ago

Btw, many unix files explorer can connect to many remote servers via ssh. Unless x less of course. All is integrated, local programs can read and edit those files as regular, drag and drop, folder, permissions with right click. I use the shell a lot, but remote bookmarks are wizardry!

furgooswft13 8y ago
And of course there is always sshfs

htor 8y ago

scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp, scp

presto8 8y ago

Fiche is another solution, based on netcat (nc): https://github.com/solusipse/fiche https://github.com/solusipse/fiche

red_admiral 8y ago

There used to be a service called chunk.io that did this. Then, presumably by some combination of becoming popular causing them bandwidth/storage issues or their service being abused, they had to make it invitation-only. (The site still exists, but they never replied to my e-mail to their signup address, so I can't say for sure if they're still live or not.) I wish transfer.sh good luck, and will bookmark them for now as "the new chunk.io". EDIT: note, as not all comments comparing this to SSH seem to have picked it up - this is a service where you can upload a file, get a link and e-mail the link to someone. You don't need to have any special software (such as sshd) running on the download side.

int0x80 8y ago
There are multiple sites like this. I dont know the size limits (I just upload small stuff) etc but here are a few I use: http://ix.io http://ix.io https://ptpb.pw https://ptpb.pw

cjhanks 8y ago

I keep seeing these pop up over and over, and I think most I have seen use a rendezvous that is also an I/O relay. A reliable UDP with a rendezvous server would allow for much more scalable P2P transfer. Unfortunately, I haven't found one implemented like this...