3 ms·

Thanks for letting us know. I'm a client of yours and I'm happy with the service. Aside: Ever consider making some portion of the storage available for shari

• rsync 6y ago
  Well, one bedrock design consideration at rsync.net is that there will never be an HTTP server on our systems - the storage is accessible by SSH only.[1] Surely that limits our product fit and reduces our growth BUT what it does for security and attack surface is priceless. However, the idea that you might have a fixed subdirectory in your rsync.net account - with a distinct password and login - is interesting and we should think about that. You're saying that would be useful even though it is accessible only by SFTP ?
  • thebankfarter 6y ago
    Here's a dialogue box from the program: https://dsh.re/14836 https://dsh.re/14836 Yes your suggestion would work. I'd be happy to connect to a subfolder with my SSH key or secondary SSH key. As it stands, I set up connections to other SSH servers with keys. It would definitely maintain your strict need to maintain security account security. Reach out to me if you want some more feedback: I'm Rsync.net user 59243
  • rakoo 6y ago
    Indeed not enabling HTTP access on rsync.net servers makes sense, because it opens up such a big can of worms. If users want to they can use something like filestash (https://www.filestash.app/ https://www.filestash.app/) that gives a drive-like access to storage placel that respect standards, such as SFTP. It's very easy to install on a cheap server and bridge to rsync.net without storing any secrets on that server