11–20 of 158 posts
I'd be shocked if it's actually uploading a comparably sized payload.
I'm going to stop using Dropbox now.
"collect it all" But I wonder why we don't have application isolation as a basic design principle. Imagine an OS where applications/serices each get their own mini-filesystem, without ability to access each other's data. Would that work?
Sandboxing is a good idea. An old idea, actually; chroot was added to unix in 1979. But shared filesystems evolved and are the norm, and even if many apps could be sandboxed, Dropbox exists outside the sandbox for a reason.
(You could also just collect an ETW trace and analyze it in xperf (err, WPA, of course) yourself.)
[1] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb896645.aspx
Another piece of evidence I'd like to see is a mitmproxy checking out what's under that TLS session. Improper local reads are one thing, it's another thing entirely if they are communicating back file names, hashes and/or the file data actual.
If taken at face value, this implies that Dropbox is spending their own bandwidth and storage space for data that's potentially much bigger than your actual shared folder, without charging you for it. What's actually going on here? What sort of false positives might we expect from such a program?
It's not a stretch of the imagination that dropbox could still be making a profit spending bandwidth and storage space this way. I can think of a government agency or two that would re-imburse the costs.
But you don't know. The lesson to be learned here is that proprietary software cannot be trusted.
Very interesting wording. I don't want to play conspiracy theory, but it only says what will sync to the computer. It doesn't say anything about what will sync (or upload) to the cloud.
The article covers the dropbox app on windows. How about others platforms, like OS X?
"collect it all" But I wonder why we don't have application isolation as a basic design principle. Imagine an OS where applications/serices each get their own mini-filesystem, without ability to access each other's data. Would that work?
Imagin an OS where applications/serices each get their own mini-filesystem, without ability to access each other's data. OS X does this for sandboxed apps: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Securi... All apps from the App Store are sandboxed.