search

dyne / tomb

the Crypto Undertaker
https://dyne.org/software/tomb
GNU General Public License v3.0
1.34k stars 153 forks source link

Cloud storage #121

Closed StrangeTcy closed 9 years ago

StrangeTcy commented 10 years ago

Imagine that I wish to have a local directory with files from a cloud storage in a tomb. It so happens that all the files tomb generates (.host and others) get uploaded to the cloud. Does this compromise anything?

hellekin commented 10 years ago

This use-case does not seem to be covered by Tomb. Tomb is stored closed as an encrypted file. If people want to copy files from "the cloud" into a tomb, they can. If they want to "backup" a tomb in the cloud, they can. If they want to backup each file stored into the tomb as individual files, they also can, but that defeats the purpose of using Tomb, doesn't it?

Dyne provide tools to people, not brains.

hellekin commented 10 years ago

Sorry, didn't mean to close the issue.

StrangeTcy commented 10 years ago

What I described sounds stupid, yes. Let's say I create a tomb, and back it up -- the closed, encrypted file, that is -- in the cloud. Let's stipulate that I have a way to get the key to each machine I'll be working on with that tomb. But each of that machines would have to run an OS that Tomb works on -- and Windows isn't among those. That seems somewhat limiting. I could just upload aes-encrypted archives of everything into the cloud, but that'd be missing the point.

melon3r commented 10 years ago

Well, tomb has limits, but it's perfectly okay. It's not made for Windows. Anyway, I don't understand why one would use encryption on Windows, you don't know what it's doing in the background...

Those files (.host, .last, .uid, .tty) won't compromise anything, but I don't understand why you'd want to upload the contents of a tomb (unencrypted) to the cloud. Do you want to do it so that you can access the files on Windows machines? Then you'd better not use tomb at all. It's like writting your secrets in a notebook using an obscure language while posting them up on facebook in plain English.

Please, let me know if I didn't understand you.

jaromil commented 10 years ago

What I do in certain situations is store the tomb on a VPS with ssh access, mount its filesystem with sshfs and open the tomb. This way no information is stored in clear on the VPS. Then if the data inside the tomb needs to be made available to operating systems other than GNU/Linux I share its contents over Samba (SMBFS/CIFS) only accessible to a LAN.

Recently I'm experimenting with Amazon's S3 storage using yas3fs instead of sshfs.

reiven commented 10 years ago

yas3fs+tomb looks like a great idea! @jaromil have you tried to mount a yas3fs-tomb on more than one server?

jaromil commented 10 years ago

No I havent tried that, but I suspect the data would be corrupted as yas3fs does not handle concurrency at least there is nothing explicit in its documentation. It also has very high latency on writes...

jaromil commented 9 years ago

closing this as outdated and not leading to any tomb improvement at present. thanks everyone for your insights!