If I may, I made one using restic that seems much easier to use [0]. You only need a dumb storage host and no database. Restic takes care of the indexing and we use snapshots just like commits.
Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
41–50 of 71 posts
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#42What's the threat model here? Anyone who needs to interact with the source code needs access to the plaintext version (employees, contractors, CodeClimate/CircleCI/Atlassian/Slack/etc type vendors, etc, all retain access), and people who don't need to interact with the source code should have their access removed in the first place. This only protects you against a malicious/compromised hosting provider, but usually…
you pretty much nailed it. this treats aws as an untrusted provider. i version almost everything with git, and there are three buckets something might go in: - if it's public, it's on github. - if it's a private company project, it probably already has a home, on github or some other trusted commercial provider with cicd and all the trimmings. - everything else goes here, as encrypted git bundles on s3. i previously…
lack of sha256
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#43If I may, I made one using restic that seems much easier to use [0]. You only need a dumb storage host and no database. Restic takes care of the indexing and we use snapshots just like commits. [0] https://github.com/CGamesPlay/git-remote-restic
this is very cool! i've actually never used restic, and should. i currently backup with git-remote-gcrypt and tar[1].
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
S3 is a cloud service provided by one company. It's not state of the art.
If you don't like S3 or DynamoDB then it'd be easy enough to sub them out for other things. Many cloud providers provide an S3-Compatible object-store protocol. There's also open source projects self-hosting your own S3-Compatible object storage. Swapping out DynamoDB for (say) Redis would also be fairly easy. The source provided is a few hundred lines of pretty readable Golang. While I'm not generally a fan of "If y…
i can confidently say that a series of encrypted git bundles could be stored anywhere. have them be monotonically increasing integers.
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#45Ignorance: What's the use-case for this? If you can't rely on the drives not to be tampered with, surely you also cannot rely on the CPU or kernel? Am I missing something?
i think the best way to think of this is that it's cheaper than private github/gitlab and easier that aws codecommit. also other stuff.
easier than aws
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#46Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#47Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#48The Keybase encrypted Git is just fine [0]. While Keybase still exists at least. Still sad about that one :( [0] https://book.keybase.io/git
looks like keybase git was implemented as a git remote helper, just like this. it’s up at github.com/keybase/client/kbfsgit.
my take away from implementing this is that git remote helpers are easy to write and very flexible.
Re: Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
#49The Keybase encrypted Git is just fine [0]. While Keybase still exists at least. Still sad about that one :( [0] https://book.keybase.io/git
I also use it and although I'm very thankful for the service given that it's free, then I wish it would be faster (push/pull takes 10+ seconds).