8 ms·

FileRock, secure Dropbox clone, has published its pricing

13 points by jivemind 13y ago

shin_lao 13y ago
Or you can use Wuala which is at least as secure and not as outrageously expensive. http://www.wuala.com/ http://www.wuala.com/
- marquis 13y ago
  Wuala has no API that I can tell, which I think LaCie is missing out on for reselling packages.
- dchest 13y ago
  Is it open source? Or we should just trust them without checking? https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adaemonology.net+wuala https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adaemonology.net+wuala
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    Whether you decide to trust a software publisher is a personal choice which may or may not depend on the availability of the source code.
wcfields 13y ago
Quite pricey: monthly - €9.99 for 1gb? SpiderOak, a secure cloud file storage, offers 2gb free for life (plus a handful more GBs for various promos).
DeadRat79 13y ago
They seem a bit expensive
- tudorconstantin 13y ago
  They ARE expensive...and not a bit. At least for the legal uses i can think about. Who knows, they might have a market though. Wish you best of luck guys.
davidcollantes 13y ago
Not open source (would you stop using the buzz word already?). Expensive as well.
- btown 13y ago
  https://github.com/filerock/FileRock-Client https://github.com/filerock/FileRock-Client
- isaacaggrey 13y ago
  It appears their client is open source, but I agree that they are not open source in the expected way (i.e., can't self-host): http://blog.filerock.com/2012/12/were-going-open-source/ http://blog.filerock.com/2012/12/were-going-open-source/
  - FileRockDA 13y ago
    Yes, our client is open-source but our server isn't. But from the point of view of security this is sufficient, as the client does not "trust" the server and every server reply is verified. The client code is GPLv3, so it could be a building block for other projects if they want to use it with a different server.
    - davidcollantes 13y ago
      Talking about the service you offer, and presenting it open source because the client is, is misleading and sensationalist. Also, it isn't a Dropbox clone (you wish!).
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      When I read some of the comments above, I thought "Oh come on, they make the client's source available to prove security, and you're complaining about lack of self-hosting? They're a business!" But yes, it's not an "open source <something>", it's a "<something> with source available". It's great from a security standpoint, but "open source" implies that all the components are open-source and that you can self-host, and referring to it as "open source <something>" is disingenuous. That said, this is just the HN post's title. It's not described like that on your site, so that part is good.
FileRockDA 13y ago
Hey, Daniele (FileRock CEO) here. Just a clarification about the (seemingly high) price: the idea is to offer a limited space where users can put their critical files (business and sensitive personal stuff, not downloaded PDFs or DivX movies). Something like your own private safe on the cloud, which is really really secure because we do: - client-side encryption (we're not able to look at your files even if we wanted to); - integrity check (you can verify that your files have not been tampered. This is our proprietary technology, I daresay nobody else does that as efficiently as we do); - transparency (our client is open-source, so you can actually verify our claim that the software is secure. This is also something that few others do).
- Avshalom 13y ago
  I feel like Tarsnap offers all that a fraction of the price.
- egonschiele 13y ago
  How does this compete with something like Arq (http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq)? 1. client-side encryption: it's all getting stored totally encrypted on amazon 2. integrity check: md5 check 3. transparency: I'll say you are more transparent, but your server-side code isn't open source so this isn't a huge win for me. Arq is also a $29 one-time fee + the cost of S3, which is $.075/GB vs $13. In what use case would I choose FileRock?
  - FileRockDA 13y ago
    Arq seems to be a backup rather than a sync service that makes your files available on all your devices + from the web. As for the questions: 1. I couldn't find detailed info on Arq, but "plain" encrypted storage is different from client-side encryption (where you, and nobody else, control the keys) 2. Our integrity check is very efficient, allowing us to update a hash of the complete dataset in real-time (while re-MD5ing a set of data at every small update takes time) 3. See another answer in this thread: from a security point of view, the fact that the server is not open-source does not matter as the client verifies all server replies. We believe that our security features are top-notch and are worth the price if you really care about the security of your data :-)
da_n 13y ago
I just don't get this. Well done for open sourcing the client, but on the front page the product is touted as fully open source so it can be audited, but the client is only half the product (arguably less) so security cannot be audited. The prices are also incredibly expensive, I can understand why you pictures of old fashioned USB sticks. Good luck with your business but I can't see how this is going to disrupt anything.

13 points by jivemind 13y ago

Or you can use Wuala which is at least as secure and not as outrageously expensive. http://www.wuala.com/ http://www.wuala.com/

marquis 13y ago
Wuala has no API that I can tell, which I think LaCie is missing out on for reselling packages.
dchest 13y ago
Is it open source? Or we should just trust them without checking? https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adaemonology.net+wuala https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adaemonology.net+wuala
- shin_lao 13y ago
  Whether you decide to trust a software publisher is a personal choice which may or may not depend on the availability of the source code.

wcfields 13y ago

Quite pricey: monthly - €9.99 for 1gb? SpiderOak, a secure cloud file storage, offers 2gb free for life (plus a handful more GBs for various promos).

DeadRat79 13y ago

They seem a bit expensive

tudorconstantin 13y ago
They ARE expensive...and not a bit. At least for the legal uses i can think about. Who knows, they might have a market though. Wish you best of luck guys.

davidcollantes 13y ago

Not open source (would you stop using the buzz word already?). Expensive as well.

btown 13y ago
https://github.com/filerock/FileRock-Client https://github.com/filerock/FileRock-Client
isaacaggrey 13y ago
It appears their client is open source, but I agree that they are not open source in the expected way (i.e., can't self-host): http://blog.filerock.com/2012/12/were-going-open-source/ http://blog.filerock.com/2012/12/were-going-open-source/
- FileRockDA 13y ago
  Yes, our client is open-source but our server isn't. But from the point of view of security this is sufficient, as the client does not "trust" the server and every server reply is verified. The client code is GPLv3, so it could be a building block for other projects if they want to use it with a different server.
  - davidcollantes 13y ago
    Talking about the service you offer, and presenting it open source because the client is, is misleading and sensationalist. Also, it isn't a Dropbox clone (you wish!).
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    When I read some of the comments above, I thought "Oh come on, they make the client's source available to prove security, and you're complaining about lack of self-hosting? They're a business!" But yes, it's not an "open source <something>", it's a "<something> with source available". It's great from a security standpoint, but "open source" implies that all the components are open-source and that you can self-host, and referring to it as "open source <something>" is disingenuous. That said, this is just the HN post's title. It's not described like that on your site, so that part is good.

FileRockDA 13y ago

Hey, Daniele (FileRock CEO) here. Just a clarification about the (seemingly high) price: the idea is to offer a limited space where users can put their critical files (business and sensitive personal stuff, not downloaded PDFs or DivX movies). Something like your own private safe on the cloud, which is really really secure because we do: - client-side encryption (we're not able to look at your files even if we wanted to); - integrity check (you can verify that your files have not been tampered. This is our proprietary technology, I daresay nobody else does that as efficiently as we do); - transparency (our client is open-source, so you can actually verify our claim that the software is secure. This is also something that few others do).

Avshalom 13y ago
I feel like Tarsnap offers all that a fraction of the price.
egonschiele 13y ago
How does this compete with something like Arq (http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq)? 1. client-side encryption: it's all getting stored totally encrypted on amazon 2. integrity check: md5 check 3. transparency: I'll say you are more transparent, but your server-side code isn't open source so this isn't a huge win for me. Arq is also a $29 one-time fee + the cost of S3, which is $.075/GB vs $13. In what use case would I choose FileRock?
- FileRockDA 13y ago
  Arq seems to be a backup rather than a sync service that makes your files available on all your devices + from the web. As for the questions: 1. I couldn't find detailed info on Arq, but "plain" encrypted storage is different from client-side encryption (where you, and nobody else, control the keys) 2. Our integrity check is very efficient, allowing us to update a hash of the complete dataset in real-time (while re-MD5ing a set of data at every small update takes time) 3. See another answer in this thread: from a security point of view, the fact that the server is not open-source does not matter as the client verifies all server replies. We believe that our security features are top-notch and are worth the price if you really care about the security of your data :-)

da_n 13y ago

I just don't get this. Well done for open sourcing the client, but on the front page the product is touted as fully open source so it can be audited, but the client is only half the product (arguably less) so security cannot be audited. The prices are also incredibly expensive, I can understand why you pictures of old fashioned USB sticks. Good luck with your business but I can't see how this is going to disrupt anything.