5 ms·

Self-hosting a zero knowledge service is probably unnecessary. If you're hosting the service, there's no need for data to be encrypted client-side. Unless, of

• user-the-name 5y ago
  How do you know it's zero knowledge?
  • mynameismon 5y ago
    https://ente.io/transparency/ https://ente.io/transparency/
    • user-the-name 5y ago
      That's just a non-binding promise. If that's enough for you, you don't need encryption at all.
      • commoner 5y ago
        I think the correct link is: https://ente.io/architecture https://ente.io/architecture
        • user-the-name 5y ago
          Again, just a promise.
  • YPPH 5y ago
    The source code of the client-side apps appears to be available on GitHub. So if they're bluffing, it won't be too long until someone calls them out on it.
    • user-the-name 5y ago
      Unless they only send compromised code to you personally and nobody else.
      • dane-pgp 5y ago
        One way to mitigate that is through Binary Transparency, which would allow people to detect if a release is made for which there is no source code available (assuming the project already has reproducible builds). There is already a project attempting this for Arch Linux packages[0]. Of course it's still possible that an update could be sent to everyone which contains some code that only runs when a certain username is entered, so users would need to avoid updating the app until an audit by a trusted third party had approved it. [0] https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans
    • TheRealPomax 5y ago
      Without a fully described mechanism to confirm that the client you download is not compiled with additional code (i.e. without specifying exactly how the client is compiled, using which version of which compiler, and which compile flags, dependency versions, etc) any kind of "the code seems to be on github" is kind of meaningless.
      • dane-pgp 5y ago
        Ideally they should support reproducible builds so that anyone can confirm that the hash of the app corresponds to a specific tag on the source repository. Unfortunately app stores are making it harder to know what the hash of the app you are installing is, but for side-loading this should still be possible. For web apps, the situation is even more difficult, but there is a technique called Secure Bookmarks which allows you to confirm that a specific bundle of JavaScript is running (at the expense of some usability): https://coins.github.io/secure-bookmark/ https://coins.github.io/secure-bookmark/
        • ignoramous 5y ago
• cdata 5y ago
  To me it is a canary signal that I have the option to self-host. Most likely, QoS would be better from ente's hosting and I would be inclined to take advantage of that. An open source server can be audited and offer an off-ramp should their service no longer suit me. Then again, the economics of enabling self-hosted infrastructure are probably less exciting compared to locking users in to marked-up, white-labeled infrastructure.
• sam0x17 5y ago
  Yeah, having attempted to operate a service very similar to this (only more focused on general encrypted cloud storage) I will say there are no good economics in usage-based billing. You're much better off selling a license to use the software and give users the ability to use common cloud storage providers (minimally the s3-compatible ones but also things like Google Drive) as the backing for this. Even safer from a legal perspective would be not having accounts at all and allowing users to purchase a 1-year license based on license keys that are cryptographically validated but not stored anywhere. Then it's impossible to do anything user specific whether you are compelled to or not.