3 ms·
Every time I read about the X-th "clone with Dropbox's functionality" I wonder where it will store its files. How many of the potential users have access to onl
by larelli 15y ago
Every time I read about the X-th "clone with Dropbox's functionality" I wonder where it will store its files. How many of the potential users have access to online storage they really control themselves? Instead of having the files on Dropbox they end up on AWS or the like. Thats because they try to copy Dropbox down to the flaw, that it doesn't encrypt files on the serverside.
For me, any solution would have to include the capability to upload only encrypted files to the server. I know of the duplicity project, which does that for simple, manually triggered backups, but which once caused me headaches to get the data back from partially corrupted files.
- jpdoctor 15y ago> Every time I read about the X-th "clone with Dropbox's functionality" I wonder where it will store its files. I have a different reaction: I keep wondering how long Dropbox can lead in a market with such low barriers to entry.
- shabble 15y agoI presume that the de-duplication saves them enough bandwidth and storage to allow a much lower price point (as well as the free plans) A secure system can't do either of those things, as far as I know. Assuming the data is encrypted per-user, on their local devices, you can't easily compress it (because the files are now very high entropy), and you can't scan for preexisting files, because you'd be giving an attacker an oracle about which files (or rather, which file hashes) exist already. Even then, you could probably use some traffic analysis to deduce something about the data. Having data securely stored also removes some of the dropbox unique(ish?) features, like being able to share content with people via the web. The pretty much diametrical opposite of dropbox is tarsnap. Everything else sits somewhere in the middle.