6 ms·
I think if you're actually interested in encryption, your best bet is actually not to wait on us to help you with it. If we're cooperating with you to encrypt y
by aston 18y ago
I think if you're actually interested in encryption, your best bet is actually not to wait on us to help you with it. If we're cooperating with you to encrypt your data, it's by definition not secure. A number of security-conscious users use us combined with TrueCrypt volumes.
- whacked_new 18y agoHaha, you win. I'm signing up. Thanks for the reply!
- dcurtis 18y agoI use an encrypted Mac OS X disk image on my Dropbox. It works well.
- tlrobinson 18y agoEvery time you make any change to the image it needs to sync the whole thing, right? Seems wasteful to me, there must be a better solution.
- Herring 18y agoI really doubt it. The whole point to encryption is that the storage area doesn't know anything about your files.
- whacked_new 18y agoMy impression is that cperciva is after this problem, but the wait seems indefinite.
- dcurtis 18y agoIt doesn't. It just syncs the byte changes.
- tlrobinson 18y agoBut depending on the encryption scheme, a single byte changed in the unencrypted data can result in the entire encrypted image being different.
- tlrobinson 18y agoI see a couple ways you could introduce encryption securely. 1. At the very least, encrypt data being transfered using SSL, to prevent sniffing on WiFi and other public networks. Public key cryptography (like SSL) certainly can be secure, and does or doesn't require "cooperation" depending on your definition. 2. Your client could somehow integrate with something like TrueCrypt, but leave it up to the user to manage their keys.
- aston 18y agoWe definitely do use encryption for both data transfer and storage. I didn't mean to imply that those things happen in the clear. And yeah, hopefully we can find a way to help users along the path of managing their own keys.