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

Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#51

Post by paulddraper »

Eikon wrote: post #7
tootie wrote: post #2

Remember WebDAV? It was a similar concept, but never really found its footing and most of the implementations were pretty shaky. I always thought it was a good idea though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebDAV

The rfc is super dumb though. For instance, when handling a PROPFIND request (more or less listing files / folders), it’s not mandatory for the server to honor the Depth header (how many levels are returned). There is also no mechanism for the server to advertise whether or not it’s honoring the Depth header. That means the Depth header is useless because the client has no way to know whether there was only one hiera…

Agreed. The spec is overcomplicated and half broken.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#52

Post by jlokier »

amelius wrote: post #27
tootie wrote: post #2

Remember WebDAV? It was a similar concept, but never really found its footing and most of the implementations were pretty shaky. I always thought it was a good idea though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebDAV

I always thought WebDAV was sabotaged by different players for some reason (e.g. Apple's implementation caused loss of data). "Never attribute to malice", but support was so bad that almost no other conclusion was possible.

Maybe it's just Apple competence in this area. Apple's SMB client causes loss of data as well.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#53

Post by duskwuff »

mirimir wrote: post #47
duskwuff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in any sense that's relevant here. They don't host content.

I have no clue where you're coming from. What sort of content do you say Tor onions can't host? "Tor onion" just means that a server is (ideally) only reachable as an onion URL, which is only accessible via the Tor network. There is the limitation that Tor only handles TCP. Otherwise, one can route anything over Tor. In my experience, that includes HTTP(S), FTP, Tahoe-LAFS, SSH, RDP, Mumble, OpenVPN and tinc. And oth…

Okay, I think I see the source of the confusion.

What you're describing is a Tor hidden service. Hidden services are separate from the Tor relay network itself, which is what I thought you were referring to as "Tor onions".

Hidden services are optimized for confidentiality over performance. Using them for bulk data storage would place a lot of load on the relay network, and it's not clear what security problem this arrangement would solve.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#54

Post by mirimir »

duskwuff wrote: post #53
mirimir wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no clue where you're coming from. What sort of content do you say Tor onions can't host? "Tor onion" just means that a server is (ideally) only reachable as an onion URL, which is only accessible via the Tor network. There is the limitation that Tor only handles TCP. Otherwise, one can route anything over Tor. In my experience, that includes HTTP(S), FTP, Tahoe-LAFS, SSH, RDP, Mumble, OpenVPN and tinc. And oth…

Okay, I think I see the source of the confusion. What you're describing is a Tor hidden service. Hidden services are separate from the Tor relay network itself, which is what I thought you were referring to as "Tor onions". Hidden services are optimized for confidentiality over performance. Using them for bulk data storage would place a lot of load on the relay network, and it's not clear what security problem this a…

Again, sorry.

As far as I know, "hidden service" is deprecated, with "onion service" the current term. And it does tend to get shortened to "onion". But I admit that it was confusing. Because relays used to be called "onion routers". Which is also more or less deprecated, I think.

The security problem is Stores being physically located and compromised, based on IP addresses found in traffic logs.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#55

Post by dredmorbius »

dredmorbius wrote: post #36
brendoncarroll wrote: post #3

Hey everyone, I'm the author of WebFS. Happy to answer any questions.

I'm going to assume you're familiar with Plan9OS's WebFS and 9P Protcol? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P_(protoco) I've been kicking around similar ideas (nowhere near implemented) for a while: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6bgowu/what_if...

Wikipedia link fixed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P_(protocol)

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#56

Post by z3t4 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #42
brendoncarroll wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not aware of Plan 9's WebFS. It looks like it presents websites in the local file system. IPFS can do something very similar with its content. I have used that before. The name here comes from using web resources (referred to by url) as building blocks for a file system. I guess "Web for FS" rather than "Web as FS".

The notion of remote services accessed via local filesystem dynamics is pretty well established. Among implementations: - NFS, particularly with the Solaris-originated concept of automounts over a /net mountpoint. - Various virtual filesystems. Midnight Commander ("mc") offers several of these, including archive formats (tar, cpio, afio, rpm, deb) and remote (FTP, SSH). - SMB/CFS/Samba - Various FUSE filesystems, inc…

SMB/CFS/Samba are not meant to be used directly over the internet. eg. without a tunnel. The best alternative right now is Dropbox unless you are a developer.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

z3t4 wrote: post #56
dredmorbius wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of remote services accessed via local filesystem dynamics is pretty well established. Among implementations: - NFS, particularly with the Solaris-originated concept of automounts over a /net mountpoint. - Various virtual filesystems. Midnight Commander ("mc") offers several of these, including archive formats (tar, cpio, afio, rpm, deb) and remote (FTP, SSH). - SMB/CFS/Samba - Various FUSE filesystems, inc…

SMB/CFS/Samba are not meant to be used directly over the internet. eg. without a tunnel. The best alternative right now is Dropbox unless you are a developer.

Neither, really, is NFS.

The point isn't whether or not these are protocols that are utilised on the naked Internet, but that they offer access to network services via filesystem semantics.

That is, rather than use a specific client or API to access remote content, or copying it locally as a separate step, you simply open a file in an existing application, or, within a program, using fopen() or equivalent operators. The networking is ... translucently ... handled in the background by the filesystem interface and/or driver(s).

The reasons SMB is not generally used or advised over the Internet are worth looking at, as this touches on many of the security / privacy concerns of any such service.

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#58

Post by CharlesW »

jlokier wrote: post #52
amelius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought WebDAV was sabotaged by different players for some reason (e.g. Apple's implementation caused loss of data). "Never attribute to malice", but support was so bad that almost no other conclusion was possible.

Maybe it's just Apple competence in this area. Apple's SMB client causes loss of data as well.

I've never experienced that (and it's the only way I access my NAS), but you have my attention. Citation(s) please?

Re: Webfs: A Filesystem Built on Top of the Web

#59

Post by jerrygreenest »

brendoncarroll wrote: post #3

Hey everyone, I'm the author of WebFS. Happy to answer any questions.

I see very little docs and absolutely no fancy info like gifs or videos explaining what it's possible to do with this tool. I see some example folder, but I can't really say the difference between webfs and ipfs. (Just a little feedback, I mean no offence)
Post reply on HN