31–40 of 45 posts
Is there any advantage to this over https://send.firefox.com/ ?
One thing I like about send.firefox.com is it's a one time download, and then the URL is denied to have ever existed. CryptSend sounds like you could share the URL with multiple destinations; multiple downloads.
Cryptsend was created as a result of my company having to share large amounts of medical data with our clients. We couldn't find an easy and secure solution, so we sat down and created cryptsend. Our codebase is currently in alpha stages so any audits/improvements/security vulns you find would be really appreciated!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This sounds like a terrific thing to host on a vps. Just make sure your provider has backup and redundancy in place for the data storage. Imagine waking up to total loss of data for all of your customers. Ouch!
Recently I have become a fan of the Hetzner Cloud: https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=us I don't know how competitive their prices are, but I like their easy to use interface which is complemented by and also easy to use API. Adding a 7-day automatic backup history is just a matter of about two clicks, and the additional costs seem reasonable to me.
This is in stark contrast to, for example, AWS S3. From the FAQ [0]:
> Amazon S3 [is] designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000 years.
> Amazon S3 ... storage classes redundantly store your objects on multiple devices across a minimum of three Availability Zones (AZs) in an Amazon S3 Region before returning SUCCESS.
In AWS parlance, an AZ is a physical data center, and they're built far enough apart so a fire, flood or tornado will not affect all of them.
There's a reason S3 (and similar) cost so much more than "hard drive attached to a server" storage. If you don't need the durability than of course it is overpriced -- but on the other hand, if you try to provide that level of durability yourself you'll quickly see it's a bargain.
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#Durability_.26_Data_Protecti...
Is there any advantage to this over https://send.firefox.com/ ?
It says "Big Files" but I don't see an explicit size. Whereas send.firefox.com is 1GiB. Self hosted I imagine you're only limited by filesystem max file size. One thing I like about send.firefox.com is it's a one time download, and then the URL is denied to have ever existed. CryptSend sounds like you could share the URL with multiple destinations; multiple downloads.
> For the most reliable operation, it’s best to keep your file under 1GB
Hi. Thank you for your work, this will be useful. However, the `Get folder link` does not work. Is it deactivated for now ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Yea, and I just noticed it downloading a bunch when visiting the page. So it's probably safe to assume they mean 3rd Party.
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…
I previously considered the idea of creating a cloud storage solution where customers are only billed for what they use. This was spurred by looking at dropbox's $10/mo plan for 1TB of storage. But I decided against it. Storage is already free for the average user. 15GB with Google is enough. If you want more, the option is there and not that expensive. $2/mo for 100GB. I see no reason why a consumer would switch to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the best solution I've found was Sharelock[0], but I couldn't for the life of me self-host the app without weird errors cropping up. It's also not free if you want more than one social sign-in via Auth0. [0]: https://sharelock.io/about
it require login with fb, google, twitter or MS. this does not solve the problem with secure key exchange