Dropship — successor to torrents?

Post by steipete » Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 6:30 PM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #34

steipete wrote: post #24

Here's a mirror: https://github.com/steipete/dropship

Thanks a lot! How'd you manage to grab it? Your post is from just one hour ago, but it was already gone when I checked a few hours ago.

Post by jamesbkel » Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

p09p09p09 wrote: post #46

wladimir wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arash (the CTO) asked me to, in a really civil way. So I decided to respect his wish and take down the repository. Myself, I really regarded dropship as a nice feature. As Dropbox had implemented the great idea of putting all humanity's data in one big hash-addressable vat, sharing is a logical extension. If you would cache the popular blocks locally (dropbox already does this in a way with LAN P2P), global data dist…

I've been sending TV shows to friends privately since I started using dropbox. Never seen a takedown. As long as they don't get a dmca, I doubt they care. If they did how hard would it be to pad media files with some salt to break hashing anyways? Not hard at all...

Post by limmeau » Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #43

0x0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still a bit worrying though; do people stop to consider that publishing a SHA256 hash bears the risk of being equivalent of publishing the file itself (assuming someone uploads it to dropbox)? Another related attack could be to start with a known file (say, your employment contract), swap out the name with a colleague and generate a bunch of files with different salary amounts, essentially bruteforcing sha256…

Assuming you know the exact structure of the file this would be a perfectly valid attack. There could be a lot of variance in rich formats like PDF files from things like compression, etc, so this might be expensive to perform on non-plaintext files. Dropbox effectively acts as an "existence oracle". You can't ask it to cough up a file you don't have, but you can ask it if a given file exists anywhere in the system.…

Post by drdaeman » Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #56

drdaeman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Restricted Content > This file is no longer available. For additional information contact Dropbox Support. So, Dropbox has censorship? Ni-i-ice.

Dear Dropbox User: We have received a notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") from Dropbox that the following material is claimed to be infringing. /Public/laanwj-dropship-464e1c4.tar.gz Accordingly, pursuant to Section 512(c)(1)(C) of DMCA, we have removed or disabled access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. ----------------- This i…

Post by mmastrac » Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 1:37 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #50

mmastrac wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you know the exact structure of the file this would be a perfectly valid attack. There could be a lot of variance in rich formats like PDF files from things like compression, etc, so this might be expensive to perform on non-plaintext files. Dropbox effectively acts as an "existence oracle". You can't ask it to cough up a file you don't have, but you can ask it if a given file exists anywhere in the system.…

> for content that is clearly illegal or a certainly copyright violation to possess How can something be "clearly" a violation? If I have an album, but copy someone else's rip instead of making my own - is that "clearly" a violation? Alternatively if I used the same application, I'd probably obtain the exact same file - is that clearly a violation too? (grooveshark kind of operates on the assumption that it's ok)