Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

send.firefox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 285 posts

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#241

Post by yownie »

potch wrote: post #212
fefe23 wrote: post #193

Why do the Mozilla people keep doing this sort of thing? Aren't they supposed to be making a good browser? I remember them telling me they are now going back to their core competences. I think it was after Firefox OS failed. Not trying to piss on anyone's parade here, just wondering how this kind of thing keeps happening. I was wondering the same thing when Mozilla added Pocket and now Cliqz to Firefox. What is the r…

Perhaps peruse this: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ Firefox is Mozilla's flagship, and the largest by far way in which we achieve our mission, but our goal is a healthy and open internet. Additionally, this is a great way to determine whether something like this would work well as an in-browser feature, and we've built it in such a way that it works in more browsers than just Firefox on day one.

just bring back my goddamn group tabs, and no I don´t want to install an extension.

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#243

Post by megy »

fefe23 wrote: post #193

Why do the Mozilla people keep doing this sort of thing? Aren't they supposed to be making a good browser? I remember them telling me they are now going back to their core competences. I think it was after Firefox OS failed. Not trying to piss on anyone's parade here, just wondering how this kind of thing keeps happening. I was wondering the same thing when Mozilla added Pocket and now Cliqz to Firefox. What is the r…

Exactly, a company should only do one thing, and just stick to it. Never try to expand. That worked for Apple and Microsoft and Google and Amazon.

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#244

Post by duncan_bayne »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #224
actionscripted wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and we've built it in such a way that it works in more browsers than just Firefox on day one. Sure wish other browser vendors would consider other browsers when releasing their products.

Google won't because the browser isn't their product. Your data and attention are their product, which they acquire in exchange for a free browser.

Unsure why this seems controversial. Google is an advertising company, not a Web browser company.

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#245

Post by flukus »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #244
duncan_bayne wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google won't because the browser isn't their product. Your data and attention are their product, which they acquire in exchange for a free browser.

Unsure why this seems controversial. Google is an advertising company, not a Web browser company.

An advertising company with 60,000 employees whose interests overlap with this forum ;)

Most of the wealth in silicon valley comes from productizing eyeballs.

In related news, this just triggered someone into downvoting my entire post history!

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#246

Post by rebyn »

I've just uploaded a 140MB file from my mountain cabin (in Viet Nam) and it was lightning fast. I then gave the link to a friend of mine residing in Melbourne, Australia and his download speed was blazing fast as well. Would be keen to learn more about the infrastructure setup behind this service to achieve such a good performance.

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#247

Post by pleasecalllater »

codebolt wrote: post #182
jhasse wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending the file over an end to end encrypted chat app.

Even then, you are trusting the app to do what it says it's going to do. The only way I feel 100% safe is encrypting the file manually before sending (through whatever platform), and sharing the key through some other medium (preferably word of mouth). As a Windows user I mostly use 7-zip for this purpose, or the encryption plugin in Notepad++ for text.

And that's still just a feeling. You just feel you can trust the encryption application. Which can be changed any time in the future in a way it is not secure any more.

You just need to trust. So what's wrong in trusting Mozilla, if you can easily trust your encryption/decryption software?

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#248

Post by thinkMOAR »

ohitsdom wrote: post #87
thinkMOAR wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be great at parties. Software is irrelevant imo. Indicating same protocol as FF send is imho more relevant.

The whole point of this discussion is that sending files to another computer is still cumbersome. Software is entirely relevant. So if you're complaining about speed of FF Send, you should specify what you're comparing it to.

lol no.. my point was that it wasn't as fast as i would expect a service from mozilla to run and broadband connections here are a lot faster. Second, it wasn't a complaint, just an observation.

And if you really think one 'https' enabled webserver software on a home subscriber cable/dsl connection is much faster then the other for a single download, then i will have to inform you that you are mistaken.

And setting up a simple webserver to exchange files isn't that hard at all. To say file sharing is cumbersome is a bit stretching the truth.

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#249

Post by unhammer »

QasimK wrote: post #144
ReAzem wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of Resilio Sync, I would suggest that people take a look at Syncthing. They have similar features but Syncthing is open source.

There is no iOS app for Syncthing as far as I can tell

They're crowdfunding one: https://www.bountysource.com/issues/7699463-native-ios-port-...

(There's also a closed-source iOS app called fsync(), but I found it too slow/unstable to use.)

Re: Firefox Send: Private, Encrypted File Sharing

#250

Post by Nexxxeh »

eugeniub wrote: post #177
the8472 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But software loaded from webpages are not immutable. They could be manipulated at any given time. So even if someone audits the code you still cannot trust it because all the audit would show is that the specific downloaded version which the auditor saw was non-malicious. As long as websites have no fingerprints that encompasses all loaded resources and can't be pinned to that fingerpint crypto in the webbrowser is n…

In that case, wouldn't an alternative like OnionShare always be safer? The code is open source, it's a desktop app, and the source code is obviously immutable on your computer.

Surly the safest option is to encrypt it yourself first?
Post reply on HN