3 ms·

Up to 2GB https://wetransfer.com https://wetransfer.com

by jbc1 6y ago

rkangel 6y ago
Thank you. Do we trust them and their security approach? Genuine question - it was a major selling point to me that Mozilla were operating Firefox Send. I was happy to give some trust to them and their approach to encryption.
- jbc1 6y ago
  I'm not sure about any audits or anything they might have had, but they're not a random fly by night. Used pretty heavily by a lot of people involved in media production. Keep in mind that if security is important, you can still self host Send.
- bscphil 6y ago
  AFAIK they don't have a "security" approach. Files are stored on their servers unencrypted. It's a completely different situation than Firefox Send was - you need to be encrypting the files yourself if keeping your files secure from WeTransfer is important to you.
- WJW 6y ago
  I used to work there, security was mostly decent with the exception of not encrypting files client side. We advocated for it many times but the founders wanted to keep the UI as simple as possible for users, which means that forcing users to send the encryption keys to the receiver via a secondary channel (ie not via WeTransfer, which would defeat the purpose as we would be able to MITM it) was a no-go. You can always encrypt the files yourself with the method of your choice and then send the encryption key over Telegram/Signal/whatever. The company has existed for over 10 years now and is profitable, so it's not going to disappear overnight or anything. That said, the thing that apparently killed Mozilla Send (becoming a hub for spam and child abuse material) was much easier to handle. The last big project I was involved in was an automated photoDNA scanner to detect suspected child abuse material. It would pull in various lists of hashes of known bad material and flag any matches for manual verification by the department of the Dutch police that handles such things.

Up to 2GB https://wetransfer.com https://wetransfer.com

by jbc1 6y ago

Up to 2GB https://wetransfer.com https://wetransfer.com

Thank you. Do we trust them and their security approach? Genuine question - it was a major selling point to me that Mozilla were operating Firefox Send. I was happy to give some trust to them and their approach to encryption.

jbc1 6y ago
I'm not sure about any audits or anything they might have had, but they're not a random fly by night. Used pretty heavily by a lot of people involved in media production. Keep in mind that if security is important, you can still self host Send.
bscphil 6y ago
AFAIK they don't have a "security" approach. Files are stored on their servers unencrypted. It's a completely different situation than Firefox Send was - you need to be encrypting the files yourself if keeping your files secure from WeTransfer is important to you.
WJW 6y ago
I used to work there, security was mostly decent with the exception of not encrypting files client side. We advocated for it many times but the founders wanted to keep the UI as simple as possible for users, which means that forcing users to send the encryption keys to the receiver via a secondary channel (ie not via WeTransfer, which would defeat the purpose as we would be able to MITM it) was a no-go. You can always encrypt the files yourself with the method of your choice and then send the encryption key over Telegram/Signal/whatever. The company has existed for over 10 years now and is profitable, so it's not going to disappear overnight or anything. That said, the thing that apparently killed Mozilla Send (becoming a hub for spam and child abuse material) was much easier to handle. The last big project I was involved in was an automated photoDNA scanner to detect suspected child abuse material. It would pull in various lists of hashes of known bad material and flag any matches for manual verification by the department of the Dutch police that handles such things.