5 ms·

<hacker news> Why would anyone use this service when you can just transfer files by temporarely opening a TCP port and starting a netcat listener that you pipe

<hacker news> Why would anyone use this service when you can just transfer files by temporarely opening a TCP port and starting a netcat listener that you pipe into the file you want? It's as simple as nc -lvnp 1234 > myfile.txt The other party then only needs to pipe the file into a netcat socket from their commandline. nc -w 3 IP < file.txt </hacker news> Jokes aside I'm intrigued at the "no server involvement". I'm assuming they mean the file isn't transferred through the server but directly (WebRTC?). There is probably still some server involvement to get around the firewalls / NAT. I don't think this will work if you just host your own instance of it.

capableweb 5y ago
> I'm assuming they mean the file isn't transferred through the server but directly (WebRTC?) Why are you assuming so, checking how it works is trivial if you open up the Network inspector. I did so in Chrome, and as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225472, uploading happens by doing a POST request to the server, and fetching happens by doing a PUT request, not sure why people keep re-iterating that it's probably WebRTC when it's really not, this is just a very basic, centralized server that does the receiving/sending of the file... And what do you mean "host your own instance"? There is no source code available from the website, so how would you host it exactly?
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  There is WebRTC code in the javascript source. It looks like some kind of POST/PUT code is used to exchange metadata about the files, but the files themselves don't seem to get transferred to the server. Or maybe you're seeing different behaviour from everyone else because WebRTC is not behaving right and you're getting the fallback behaviour? The "with no server involvement" part of the title is definitely wrong, this needs some kind of server to orchestrate the transfer itself. The server doesn't seem to receive the file contents, though.
  - remram 5y ago
    That sounds like a lot of "server involvement" to me.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > Or maybe you're seeing different behaviour from everyone else because WebRTC is not behaving right and you're getting the fallback behaviour? Could be. I've tried it in both Firefox (94.0.1) and Chrome (93.0.4577.63) on Linux (5.15.2), maybe they fallback based on OS if so? Weird, as other websites have no trouble using WebRTC with either Firefox or Chrome for me.
    - Kiro 5y ago
      You can't see WebRTC in the normal Network tab. Go to chrome://webrtc-internals/ and you will see the WebRTC action.
Asdrubalini 5y ago
I don't think transferring a file via netcat without any form of encryption is something i would recommend, unless you are on a network you 100% trust. EDIT: it seems like this service doesn't even support HTTPS...
- capableweb 5y ago
  Not supporting HTTPS together with falsely claiming "no server involvement" when everything happens via the server makes me think this is a honeypot or something like that.
  - vermilingua 5y ago
    If there is no server involvement, how could there be HTTPS, which by definition requires some trust in the server?
    - macksd 5y ago
      The web page must be served from somewhere, even if the server it came from really wasn't involved in file transfers. It would be nice to have HTTPS for the client to rule out MITM attacks or the like.
      - christophilus 5y ago
        The client can be sent encryption keys, generated by the server, and use them for P2P encryption, so the MITM can be avoided.
        macksd 5y ago
        That's great if the server that sends the encryption keys is actually the server you think you're talking to.
- Proven 5y ago
  Why? I can encrypt the file before sending it
pierrefermat1 5y ago
I assume this was inspired by the legendary comment on why Dropbox would fail Gave me a good laugh!
- zerr 5y ago
  I know the context/reference, but still do not get it. It anyway assumes that Dropbox came up with something new, but it didn't - there were already such seamlessly integrated cloud storage providers with user friendly access, e.g. virtual new disk on Windows, tray icon, etc... The only thing Dropbox did differently seems like pure marketing.
Bayart 5y ago
<hacker_news> Those are not a pipes though, they're redirections. This common mistake surely means your expertise on this matter is lacking and therefor your opinion is worthless. </hacker_news>
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
What I did was tar c /data/emulated/0 | nc ... I can't possibly send all photos one by one manually.

capableweb 5y ago

> I'm assuming they mean the file isn't transferred through the server but directly (WebRTC?) Why are you assuming so, checking how it works is trivial if you open up the Network inspector. I did so in Chrome, and as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225472, uploading happens by doing a POST request to the server, and fetching happens by doing a PUT request, not sure why people keep re-iterating that it's probably WebRTC when it's really not, this is just a very basic, centralized server that does the receiving/sending of the file... And what do you mean "host your own instance"? There is no source code available from the website, so how would you host it exactly?

jeroenhd 5y ago
There is WebRTC code in the javascript source. It looks like some kind of POST/PUT code is used to exchange metadata about the files, but the files themselves don't seem to get transferred to the server. Or maybe you're seeing different behaviour from everyone else because WebRTC is not behaving right and you're getting the fallback behaviour? The "with no server involvement" part of the title is definitely wrong, this needs some kind of server to orchestrate the transfer itself. The server doesn't seem to receive the file contents, though.
- remram 5y ago
  That sounds like a lot of "server involvement" to me.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > Or maybe you're seeing different behaviour from everyone else because WebRTC is not behaving right and you're getting the fallback behaviour? Could be. I've tried it in both Firefox (94.0.1) and Chrome (93.0.4577.63) on Linux (5.15.2), maybe they fallback based on OS if so? Weird, as other websites have no trouble using WebRTC with either Firefox or Chrome for me.
  - Kiro 5y ago
    You can't see WebRTC in the normal Network tab. Go to chrome://webrtc-internals/ and you will see the WebRTC action.

Asdrubalini 5y ago

I don't think transferring a file via netcat without any form of encryption is something i would recommend, unless you are on a network you 100% trust. EDIT: it seems like this service doesn't even support HTTPS...

capableweb 5y ago
Not supporting HTTPS together with falsely claiming "no server involvement" when everything happens via the server makes me think this is a honeypot or something like that.
- vermilingua 5y ago
  If there is no server involvement, how could there be HTTPS, which by definition requires some trust in the server?
  - macksd 5y ago
    The web page must be served from somewhere, even if the server it came from really wasn't involved in file transfers. It would be nice to have HTTPS for the client to rule out MITM attacks or the like.
    - christophilus 5y ago
      The client can be sent encryption keys, generated by the server, and use them for P2P encryption, so the MITM can be avoided.
      - macksd 5y ago
        That's great if the server that sends the encryption keys is actually the server you think you're talking to.
Proven 5y ago
Why? I can encrypt the file before sending it

pierrefermat1 5y ago

I assume this was inspired by the legendary comment on why Dropbox would fail Gave me a good laugh!

zerr 5y ago
I know the context/reference, but still do not get it. It anyway assumes that Dropbox came up with something new, but it didn't - there were already such seamlessly integrated cloud storage providers with user friendly access, e.g. virtual new disk on Windows, tray icon, etc... The only thing Dropbox did differently seems like pure marketing.

Bayart 5y ago

<hacker_news> Those are not a pipes though, they're redirections. This common mistake surely means your expertise on this matter is lacking and therefor your opinion is worthless. </hacker_news>

GoblinSlayer 5y ago

What I did was tar c /data/emulated/0 | nc ... I can't possibly send all photos one by one manually.