3 ms·

Is there anything remotely as convenient as Dropbox, but with sane, client-side crypto? As far as I know, Dropbox encrypt the data, but on the server, which, as

Is there anything remotely as convenient as Dropbox, but with sane, client-side crypto? As far as I know, Dropbox encrypt the data, but on the server, which, as far as I'm concerned, is about as good as storing it in plaintext. Alternatively/even better: is there a remote mirroring filesystem and/or block storage system which allows reasonable client-side crypto over a slow asymmetric (ADSL) link? I have a local backup server, it would be great if I could mirror that into a server in a datacentre somewhere. Is there anything remotely as convenient as Dropbox, but with sane, client-side crypto? As far as I know, Dropbox encrypt the data, but on the server, which, as far as I'm concerned, is about as good as storing it in plaintext. Alternatively/even better: is there a remote mirroring filesystem and/or block storage system which allows reasonable client-side crypto over a slow asymmetric (ADSL) link? I have a local backup server, it would be great if I could mirror that into a server in a datacentre somewhere. Has anyone tried this kind of thing with lessfs, dm-crypt and drbd?

perniciosus 16y ago
http://www.wuala.com/ http://www.wuala.com/
- pmjordan 16y ago
  That looks pretty cool, thanks! Going to read up on the tech behind this and test it out.
mike-cardwell 16y ago
You could combine encfs with Dropbox. Should work quite well as it uses one encrypted file per real file.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  OK, I'll give that a go too, thanks! EDIT: I guess one disadvantage of this approach is that the file system structure is exposed. Convenient though.
Robin_Message 16y ago
I think this is what TarSnap http://www.tarsnap.com/ http://www.tarsnap.com/ is meant to be for.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  As far as I can tell, Tarsnap is only for archives, it doesn't give you random-access, mountable-as-a-filesystem style convenience. For backups, Tarsnap is definitely the correct architecture, for syncing, not so much.
  - cperciva 16y ago
    Correct. Theoretically the Tarsnap client-server protocol could be used to synthesize a mountable filesystem, but that would add hard latency requirements -- one of the great advantages of Tarsnap's transactional archive-creation is that it can tolerate high latency and even requests failing with little impact.

perniciosus 16y ago

http://www.wuala.com/ http://www.wuala.com/

pmjordan 16y ago
That looks pretty cool, thanks! Going to read up on the tech behind this and test it out.

mike-cardwell 16y ago

You could combine encfs with Dropbox. Should work quite well as it uses one encrypted file per real file.

pmjordan 16y ago
OK, I'll give that a go too, thanks! EDIT: I guess one disadvantage of this approach is that the file system structure is exposed. Convenient though.

Robin_Message 16y ago

I think this is what TarSnap http://www.tarsnap.com/ http://www.tarsnap.com/ is meant to be for.

pmjordan 16y ago
As far as I can tell, Tarsnap is only for archives, it doesn't give you random-access, mountable-as-a-filesystem style convenience. For backups, Tarsnap is definitely the correct architecture, for syncing, not so much.
- cperciva 16y ago
  Correct. Theoretically the Tarsnap client-server protocol could be used to synthesize a mountable filesystem, but that would add hard latency requirements -- one of the great advantages of Tarsnap's transactional archive-creation is that it can tolerate high latency and even requests failing with little impact.