Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

cryptsend.io

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#13
post #9

I've recently analysed pricing of various storage providers when thinking of building a side project, and I was surprised at how costly the services were. S3, Drive, Dropbox, Spaces, B2, Box, several Object Storage solutions. Some cases storage was cheap, but the transfer was costly. Everything seemed costly for the simple use case of providing an end user 10GB monthly upload + ~50GB bandwidth at low cost. A vps with…

wasabi.com might be worth looking into. $.0049 per GB/month, no egress charges. That's roughly $5/month for 1TB, which probably beats doing this on a VPS.

Thanks, hadn't heard of Wasabi before. The storage pricing is comparable with B2, but no egress charges is nice. Any have experience with this provider?

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#14
post #10
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing that come to mind is that you can self-host cryptsend, while it doesnt seem to be possible to self-host send.firefox.com

You can indeed self-host Firefox Send: https://github.com/mozilla/send

Or use the docker container directly: $ docker pull mozilla/send

https://github.com/mozilla/send/blob/master/docs/docker.md

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#15
post #9

I've recently analysed pricing of various storage providers when thinking of building a side project, and I was surprised at how costly the services were. S3, Drive, Dropbox, Spaces, B2, Box, several Object Storage solutions. Some cases storage was cheap, but the transfer was costly. Everything seemed costly for the simple use case of providing an end user 10GB monthly upload + ~50GB bandwidth at low cost. A vps with…

wasabi.com might be worth looking into. $.0049 per GB/month, no egress charges. That's roughly $5/month for 1TB, which probably beats doing this on a VPS.

I only recently learned of wasabi (I think it was Leo Laporte's Twit podcast)...and beyond the nicer price points, seems to be compatible with AWS...so, if i read things right, one could somewhat/more easily switch between aws and wasabi - avoiding the dreaded vendor lock. If that's true, that's pretty neat.

Disclaimer: i have no direct experience with wasabi, nor am i affiliated with them at all.

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#16
post #13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wasabi.com might be worth looking into. $.0049 per GB/month, no egress charges. That's roughly $5/month for 1TB, which probably beats doing this on a VPS.

Thanks, hadn't heard of Wasabi before. The storage pricing is comparable with B2, but no egress charges is nice. Any have experience with this provider?

So after reading their pricing FAQ, it looks like you are billed for a minimum of 1TB, and every file is billed for 90 days minimum.

Based on their calculations, if you plan on storing files for more 16 days, it will be marginally cheaper than S3, but if you plan on keeping files around longer than 90 days, it is ~5x cheaper than S3.

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#18

So one thing, it mentions that it is JS dependence free. How are you encrypting the files client side then? If you are encrypting the files server side, then that is NOT E2E encryption.

There are JavaScript files in the GitHub repository, so I'm going to assume they mean third-party dependencies, but some more clarification would be nice.

There is a file called cipher.js with encrypt and decrypt functions https://github.com/countable-web/cryptsend/blob/develop/publ...

Re: Show HN: CryptSend.io – Share encrypted files with randomly generated links

#20

So one thing, it mentions that it is JS dependence free. How are you encrypting the files client side then? If you are encrypting the files server side, then that is NOT E2E encryption.

I wonder what JS dependencies FTP has...
Post reply on HN