4 ms·

Custom backups using Duplicity+GPG to multiple clouds. Wuala[1] if you want something working out of the box. I have 18.5 GB of free storage just from coupons f

by deno 14y ago

Custom backups using Duplicity+GPG to multiple clouds. Wuala[1] if you want something working out of the box. I have 18.5 GB of free storage just from coupons found with little Googling[2]. [1] https://www.wuala.com/ https://www.wuala.com/ [2] http://static.deno.pl/pub/wuala-storage.png http://static.deno.pl/pub/wuala-storage.png

chmars 14y ago
Wuala is great but not recommendable for backups if you care for Mac metadata and an app running silently in the background. I have no idea why Wuala has not implemented these features after all the years. Crashplan is Java-based too and has both features.
graue 14y ago
Looked into Wuala. I like this part: "Wuala is completely private and secure. When you store a file in Wuala, the file [..]gets encrypted before it leaves your computer. [..]Your own password is very important here: it never leaves your computer, so we do not know it. Hence, not even we can access your data." - https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq But it seems pointless in light of: "Do you plan to open the source code? Currently not. Opening the source code of Wuala would consume quite some time and effort, and commitment to maintain it. If you are a software engineer and would like to see how Wuala works, feel free to apply for a job at Wuala." - https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq/c/21 https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq/c/21 It would be trivially easy for them to hide a backdoor and/or leak data in their closed-source code. So at the end of the day, the message is "Trust us." So what purpose does the client-side encryption serve? Empty marketing. At best, it makes it _slightly_ harder for them to read your files. Tarsnap (www.tarsnap.com), which does have client source code available, doesn't suffer from this problem. Unfortunately it's a fair bit more expensive.
- deno 14y ago
  EU laws give you some protection. Still, this is why I don’t use it for backups myself. Their technology is quite good though, it uses similar snapshot based model that Tarsnap does and has very small footprint, considering. Hopefully they will be able opensource it at some point.
- Hermel 14y ago
  I'm Luzius Meisser, cofounder of Wuala. Yes, some trust in Wuala is still required, namely trusting us that we won't put a backdoor into the client. Much more trust is required in services without client-side encryption. Adding a backdoor would ruin our reputation once someone found out, while companies like Dropbox won't suffer much when they hand over data to a government agency as it is known that they can and will do it. Also, bugs like accidentally disabling the password verification can be ruled by design with client-side encryption. Also, please note that laws are often constructed such that companies can be forced to hand over data they possess, however not to collect data they do not possess yet. E.g. there are many laws in many jurisdictions that could be used to force Google to hand over data you have stored in Google Drive, but the same laws cannot be used to force us to add a backdoor to Wuala. So legally, it is much much easier to obtain data stored in Google Drive than to obtain data stored in Wuala (or another service that uses client-side encryption). Noone has ever asked us to add a backdoor to Wuala and we would fight against it if someone did. I agree that it would be nicer to open the source code so our security would be independently verifiable, but claiming that what we do is "empty marketing" is clearly wrong.
  - graue 14y ago
    Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean and agree there is some difference. Let me put it this way: I would feel confident my Wuala backup is secure from my boss or ex-girlfriend, but not from a hostile government. If I were an activist or otherwise doing something very controversial, I wouldn't trust it. And honestly, that's the same way I feel about Dropbox. It's not the most secure thing around, but as long as I'm just another J. Random Hacker, who cares? So to me there isn't a distinction. For why not to trust a closed-source system's claims of security, see Skype. If I remember correctly what I have read, they boasted about using "end-to-end encryption", strongly implying that your Skype calls could not be wiretapped. The catch? The encryption keys were stored on the server! And there was a story where someone (a drug smuggler, I think) was busted seemingly as a result of intercepted Skype calls. The misleading claims of security didn't ruin Skype's reputation - people still use it. I'm glad you replied to my comment as it shows you're at least thinking about these things. I hope you will consider opening your source code in the future. At that point Wuala might be of interest to me.

by deno 14y ago

chmars 14y ago

Wuala is great but not recommendable for backups if you care for Mac metadata and an app running silently in the background. I have no idea why Wuala has not implemented these features after all the years. Crashplan is Java-based too and has both features.

graue 14y ago

Looked into Wuala. I like this part: "Wuala is completely private and secure. When you store a file in Wuala, the file [..]gets encrypted before it leaves your computer. [..]Your own password is very important here: it never leaves your computer, so we do not know it. Hence, not even we can access your data." - https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq But it seems pointless in light of: "Do you plan to open the source code? Currently not. Opening the source code of Wuala would consume quite some time and effort, and commitment to maintain it. If you are a software engineer and would like to see how Wuala works, feel free to apply for a job at Wuala." - https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq/c/21 https://www.wuala.com/en/support/faq/c/21 It would be trivially easy for them to hide a backdoor and/or leak data in their closed-source code. So at the end of the day, the message is "Trust us." So what purpose does the client-side encryption serve? Empty marketing. At best, it makes it _slightly_ harder for them to read your files. Tarsnap (www.tarsnap.com), which does have client source code available, doesn't suffer from this problem. Unfortunately it's a fair bit more expensive.

deno 14y ago
EU laws give you some protection. Still, this is why I don’t use it for backups myself. Their technology is quite good though, it uses similar snapshot based model that Tarsnap does and has very small footprint, considering. Hopefully they will be able opensource it at some point.
Hermel 14y ago
I'm Luzius Meisser, cofounder of Wuala. Yes, some trust in Wuala is still required, namely trusting us that we won't put a backdoor into the client. Much more trust is required in services without client-side encryption. Adding a backdoor would ruin our reputation once someone found out, while companies like Dropbox won't suffer much when they hand over data to a government agency as it is known that they can and will do it. Also, bugs like accidentally disabling the password verification can be ruled by design with client-side encryption. Also, please note that laws are often constructed such that companies can be forced to hand over data they possess, however not to collect data they do not possess yet. E.g. there are many laws in many jurisdictions that could be used to force Google to hand over data you have stored in Google Drive, but the same laws cannot be used to force us to add a backdoor to Wuala. So legally, it is much much easier to obtain data stored in Google Drive than to obtain data stored in Wuala (or another service that uses client-side encryption). Noone has ever asked us to add a backdoor to Wuala and we would fight against it if someone did. I agree that it would be nicer to open the source code so our security would be independently verifiable, but claiming that what we do is "empty marketing" is clearly wrong.
- graue 14y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean and agree there is some difference. Let me put it this way: I would feel confident my Wuala backup is secure from my boss or ex-girlfriend, but not from a hostile government. If I were an activist or otherwise doing something very controversial, I wouldn't trust it. And honestly, that's the same way I feel about Dropbox. It's not the most secure thing around, but as long as I'm just another J. Random Hacker, who cares? So to me there isn't a distinction. For why not to trust a closed-source system's claims of security, see Skype. If I remember correctly what I have read, they boasted about using "end-to-end encryption", strongly implying that your Skype calls could not be wiretapped. The catch? The encryption keys were stored on the server! And there was a story where someone (a drug smuggler, I think) was busted seemingly as a result of intercepted Skype calls. The misleading claims of security didn't ruin Skype's reputation - people still use it. I'm glad you replied to my comment as it shows you're at least thinking about these things. I hope you will consider opening your source code in the future. At that point Wuala might be of interest to me.