Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 363 posts

Re: Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

#71
post #6

Resilio Sync (formerly bittorent sync) is my go-to for any file larger than a few hundred megabytes.

Same here. I use this to deploy large files to my VPS

I third this suggestion, if you have to send the file to multiple parties they can all share among themselves (it's BitTorrent after all) speeding up the process even further.

Re: Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

#72
post #44

Usually a local HTTP server. But I've wondered before if binary data could be encoded in to a video file and then uploaded to youtube or some other video service...

Any compression would ruin that. Though it should be possible to do what you described with 16MP pictures and upload them to google drive. Those won't be compressed according to someone under that LTT video where they abuse 5 business accounts for their backup.

>Any compression would ruin that.

Well not really. You could have an entire frame as a solid color red to represent a '1' and a solid white frame to represent a '0'. At 24 fps, that is 3 bytes per second and would certainly survive compression. Just keep drilling down, half a frame that is red and another half that is white would represent a '10' pair, now you've doubled your throughput. You could keep cutting these blocks down until you get to a limit, you certainly couldn't get down to a single pixel, but some factor of that. Plus you could use an encoding with error correction instead of just raw binary data.

Re: Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

#75

Netcat: $ nc -l 4242 > dest And then on the sending end: $ nc hostname 4242 This works great when you just need to get a file of any size from one machine to another and you’re both on the same network. Are used this a lot at one of my offices to schlep the files around between a few of the machines we had.

and if you are not worried about corruption. You might at least want to run a checksum on both ends and compare them.

Re: Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

#76
post #66
post #46

It depends in whether I want to send it to someone in the local network or through the internet. For local network: I use miniserve ( https://github.com/svenstaro/miniserve ) which is just a simple http server. There are similar tools for when I want to share it from the smartphone. Through the internet it really varies: Sometimes it is Firefox send ( https://send.firefox.com/ ) For photos, I use a self hosted photo…

for local network. You can just do python3 -m http.server in the dir, or python -m SimpleHTTPServer (python2) Or npm install -g http-server for nodejs, then http-server Local network is easy.

If you're using a recent version of node/npm, you can just do:

npx http-server .

To remove the global install step. This will install and run all in one command.

Re: Ask HN: What is your favorite method of sending large files?

#80
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPG is just not a very good tool. I think 'tptacek explained it quite well in the article I linked. With that said, Magic Wormhole is also a very good tool for transferring files. It will encrypt in transit. So for many files, using a separate encryption tool is not necessary. (So far I haven’t tried it for large files.)

I want to comment on that article you keep referring to, but I don't want to clutter up the top of the thread so I'll do it here. The author really wants to dislike PGP, but the reason everyone trusts PGP is because it's been around forever. Yeah there've been deficiencies, just like there've been deficiencies in OpenSSL, but that doesn't make it a bad tool. I could go on but this xkcd sums it up: https://xkcd.com/23…

> By default, GPG keys expire in a year.

This speaks to the article's complaint that GPG is usually the wrong tool for the job. For example if you just need to transfer a file securely (and have a fast, reliable internet connection on both ends and don't need to worry about active tracking of metadata), you can use Magic Wormhole (or a similar PAKE system) to do it. Imagine two scenarios: one with GPG and one with PAKE, and in both cases an adversary captures a ciphertext. With GPG if they can get your private key 6 months later, you're screwed. With PAKE the keys used to exchange the data are ephemeral, and so this isn't even a possibility.

> > Broken Authentication

> I've never heard of any of this.

I believe this is referring to authenticated encryption (AEAD), which is definitely valuable and GPG does not provide. AGE does.

Most of the other stuff you mention also falls under "wrong tool for the job". If you want a better argument, I'd talk about GPG having a web of trust system built in. On the other hand I think it's an open question whether this has ever brought real value to anyone. We have enough other secure messaging systems that it's no longer necessary for a single program to get there on its own. Usually you can count on some other mechanism to confirm your contact's identity.

Post reply on HN