7 ms·

- You might switch between several computers throughout the day. - You might believe the cloud folks do better backups than you.

by jws 6y ago

woodruffw 6y ago
I'm sympathetic to the idea that a company is going to be better at doing backups and maintenance than I am, but for the first point: it sounds like they're using the local machine's SSH key to wrap a symmetric key[1]. Unless you're sharing the same SSH key across all of your machines, this tool probably isn't very useful when switching between computers. Edit: It looks like they generate their own SSH key instead of using an already present one[2]. So you'd presumably need to copy that to each machine that you'd want to use so that it can unwrap the real (cloud-stored) decryption key. [1]: https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm#how-it-works https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm#how-it-works [2]: https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/master/keygen/keygen.go#L77 https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/master/keygen/ke...
- tobypadilla 6y ago
  Hi! I'm one of the Charm co-founders. We actually issue a new Charm specific SSH key for you. We then allow you to link machines together with our `charm` account utility. The symmetric keys used to encrypt data are encrypted for each public key linked to your account so you can access your data from multiple machines.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    Thanks for the explanation! Glad to hear you've thought out and handled the linking process. Just out of curiosity: have you seen or considered age[1] for the symmetric pair? I've used it on a few projects where cryptographic flexibility wasn't necessary. [1]: https://github.com/FiloSottile/age https://github.com/FiloSottile/age
    - tobypadilla 6y ago
      We actually ended up making our own encryption library that's based on age, it's called sasquatch (built by our team member muesli): https://github.com/muesli/sasquatch https://github.com/muesli/sasquatch
3np 6y ago
Sure, but having been burnt by Keybase and others in the past, there's no way I'm adding another closed-source single-provide blackbox server endpoint to my daily routine. While this looks like a really neat utility, I'll pass until there's a self-hosted option under a free license. To each their own.
- tobypadilla 6y ago
  As one of the Charm co-founders, I think that's fair! That being said, others have asked us about this recently as well. I'll paste a reply I made the other day on Reddit: Your concerns are well founded! I've certainly been burned by services disappearing... It's a compromise to have a business model that allows us to develop Charm full-time vs. being completely open source. Our plan is to have a business model similar to GitHub: free and low cost services for individuals with enterprise hosting options (colo or hosted by us). One thing that I think we should do is allow for a very easy export of all of your data. We can build that into glow and charm (vs. having to email us and ask for it or some other draconian option). This is very much a 1.0 release of the Charm Cloud and one of the reasons we wanted to ship it early was to get feedback from the community and build out the features our users want. Your point is a great one that we should solve for ASAP. A glow export feature that spits out a .tar.gz of all your stashed markdowns seems like a great idea. We're also open sourcing the libraries we use to build glow and charm, most of which don't require the Charm Cloud. We just made our TUI framework Bubble Tea open source for instance: https://github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea https://github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea We also have a library for applying JSON stylesheets to Markdown called Glamour that is independent of the Charm Cloud (and currently in use in GitHub's cli): https://github.com/charmbracelet/glamour https://github.com/charmbracelet/glamour Thanks for your question, it's a problem worth addressing.
  - sanbor 6y ago
    Please consider having an open source self-host option and a paid cloud service. Many people (and enterprises) doesn't want to spend time securing and maintaining servers. If your company disappears there is the self-host option as backup. This model seems to work well for Ghost and Gitlab.
kps 6y ago
- I do switch between several computers throughout the day. That's what network file systems are for. - ‘Cloud folks’ might have more stable hardware and software, but have built themselves a deadly reputation for unreliable policies.
- Conlectus 6y ago
  I think I'm having flashbacks :P https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  - 3np 6y ago
    This definitely goes both ways. I’d wager GP falls in the same category as I do in that Dropbox is not an option for them. Their security track record isn’t really stellar.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
      Encrypting the data before uploading to Dropbox should make their security almost irrelevant? The issue I have with these anti-cloud sentiments is that they more or less give a moat to the established players like OneDrive or Google Drive or Dropbox. There has to be a better way to reduce the risk of alternative cloud services.
      - 3np 6y ago
        That’s very valid nuance. But I also think that alternative cloud services can be successful without having to keep their server-side implementation closed and protected. I absolutely agree that there’s a need for the middle ground. I’d also say that I think nobody really cares if GH is running vanilla git, or which SMTP and IMAP server Fastmail is using; perhaps the important thing is that there exists at least one maintained fully API compatible open alternative, not necessarily 100% identical to the software run by the hosted, or even primarily developed or maintained by them. (And, well, the insight that can be derived from metadata is not to be dismissed, so I wouldn’t agree on “almost irrelevant”)
slightwinder 6y ago
Also valid for git. Sync to github or whatever and you have the same secure cloud. Which would an editors point to automate this BTW.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 3np 6y ago
  Major difference here is that GH (in terms of git repo hosting and interaction) have API-compatible free and open implementations - there’s no vendor lock-in (apart from the network effect if you count that, which I don’t)

- You might switch between several computers throughout the day. - You might believe the cloud folks do better backups than you.

by jws 6y ago

- You might switch between several computers throughout the day. - You might believe the cloud folks do better backups than you.

woodruffw 6y ago

I'm sympathetic to the idea that a company is going to be better at doing backups and maintenance than I am, but for the first point: it sounds like they're using the local machine's SSH key to wrap a symmetric key[1]. Unless you're sharing the same SSH key across all of your machines, this tool probably isn't very useful when switching between computers. Edit: It looks like they generate their own SSH key instead of using an already present one[2]. So you'd presumably need to copy that to each machine that you'd want to use so that it can unwrap the real (cloud-stored) decryption key. [1]: https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm#how-it-works https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm#how-it-works [2]: https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/master/keygen/keygen.go#L77 https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/master/keygen/ke...

tobypadilla 6y ago
Hi! I'm one of the Charm co-founders. We actually issue a new Charm specific SSH key for you. We then allow you to link machines together with our `charm` account utility. The symmetric keys used to encrypt data are encrypted for each public key linked to your account so you can access your data from multiple machines.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  Thanks for the explanation! Glad to hear you've thought out and handled the linking process. Just out of curiosity: have you seen or considered age[1] for the symmetric pair? I've used it on a few projects where cryptographic flexibility wasn't necessary. [1]: https://github.com/FiloSottile/age https://github.com/FiloSottile/age
  - tobypadilla 6y ago
    We actually ended up making our own encryption library that's based on age, it's called sasquatch (built by our team member muesli): https://github.com/muesli/sasquatch https://github.com/muesli/sasquatch

3np 6y ago

Sure, but having been burnt by Keybase and others in the past, there's no way I'm adding another closed-source single-provide blackbox server endpoint to my daily routine. While this looks like a really neat utility, I'll pass until there's a self-hosted option under a free license. To each their own.

tobypadilla 6y ago
As one of the Charm co-founders, I think that's fair! That being said, others have asked us about this recently as well. I'll paste a reply I made the other day on Reddit: Your concerns are well founded! I've certainly been burned by services disappearing... It's a compromise to have a business model that allows us to develop Charm full-time vs. being completely open source. Our plan is to have a business model similar to GitHub: free and low cost services for individuals with enterprise hosting options (colo or hosted by us). One thing that I think we should do is allow for a very easy export of all of your data. We can build that into glow and charm (vs. having to email us and ask for it or some other draconian option). This is very much a 1.0 release of the Charm Cloud and one of the reasons we wanted to ship it early was to get feedback from the community and build out the features our users want. Your point is a great one that we should solve for ASAP. A glow export feature that spits out a .tar.gz of all your stashed markdowns seems like a great idea. We're also open sourcing the libraries we use to build glow and charm, most of which don't require the Charm Cloud. We just made our TUI framework Bubble Tea open source for instance: https://github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea https://github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea We also have a library for applying JSON stylesheets to Markdown called Glamour that is independent of the Charm Cloud (and currently in use in GitHub's cli): https://github.com/charmbracelet/glamour https://github.com/charmbracelet/glamour Thanks for your question, it's a problem worth addressing.
- sanbor 6y ago
  Please consider having an open source self-host option and a paid cloud service. Many people (and enterprises) doesn't want to spend time securing and maintaining servers. If your company disappears there is the self-host option as backup. This model seems to work well for Ghost and Gitlab.

kps 6y ago

- I do switch between several computers throughout the day. That's what network file systems are for. - ‘Cloud folks’ might have more stable hardware and software, but have built themselves a deadly reputation for unreliable policies.

Conlectus 6y ago
I think I'm having flashbacks :P https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- 3np 6y ago
  This definitely goes both ways. I’d wager GP falls in the same category as I do in that Dropbox is not an option for them. Their security track record isn’t really stellar.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
    Encrypting the data before uploading to Dropbox should make their security almost irrelevant? The issue I have with these anti-cloud sentiments is that they more or less give a moat to the established players like OneDrive or Google Drive or Dropbox. There has to be a better way to reduce the risk of alternative cloud services.
    - 3np 6y ago
      That’s very valid nuance. But I also think that alternative cloud services can be successful without having to keep their server-side implementation closed and protected. I absolutely agree that there’s a need for the middle ground. I’d also say that I think nobody really cares if GH is running vanilla git, or which SMTP and IMAP server Fastmail is using; perhaps the important thing is that there exists at least one maintained fully API compatible open alternative, not necessarily 100% identical to the software run by the hosted, or even primarily developed or maintained by them. (And, well, the insight that can be derived from metadata is not to be dismissed, so I wouldn’t agree on “almost irrelevant”)

slightwinder 6y ago

Also valid for git. Sync to github or whatever and you have the same secure cloud. Which would an editors point to automate this BTW.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
3np 6y ago
Major difference here is that GH (in terms of git repo hosting and interaction) have API-compatible free and open implementations - there’s no vendor lock-in (apart from the network effect if you count that, which I don’t)