Slashdot Mirror

SpiderOak are discontinuing their warrant canary, which some are speculating that it means their canary is dead & they have been compromised.

They are also offering a short-term unlimited backup plan (which expires today). The close timing of that & the canary announcement is a little interesting. I was literally about to sign up to move away from Dropbox when I heard the warrant canary thing and it was confusing/disturbing enough to make me hold off.

take a look at https://spideroak.com/ they claim zero knowledge

The keys can be saved on the server and processes in the JS client.

Keys cannot be saved on the sever. If you give the private keys to Google, they can decrypt the messages at rest on their servers. This is why no encrypted storage uses server-stored keys: see Spideroak for an example of modern encrypted storage that keeps keys client-side only for a very good reason. Rule one of having keys: never give them to anyone.

The point is to encrypt email during transit so nobody can snoop

The point is not to encrypt email during transit. The point is to encrypt e-mail at all points between the correspondents. The mail should be encrypted clientside and remain encrypted while at rest on the servers as well as during transit. S/MIME and PGP/GPG do that. Encrypting only during transit means that plaintext is sitting around waiting to be hoovered up by Google (for ad profile building) and whatever other parties (NSA, hackers, etc) have access to Google's servers.

If you don't trust gmail don't use gmail.

Despite seeming an off-topic statement in a discussion about securing gmail, this is the root of the problem. Google is scanning gmail accounts and does provide governments (and any hackers it doesn't know about) with access to those accounts. Using client-side S/MIME or PGP/GPG solves that trust issue, for values of "solve" that require an attacker to expend more work than is feasible. Self-hosting e-mail also solves that trust issue in other ways, but it is out of the realm of discussion, since the topic is how best to secure gmail.

Alternately the keys can be decrypted with a user inputed pass phrase in the JS client, then mean even gmail would be unable to read your mail. Assuming they don't snoop your pass phrase themselves. But if that is a problem, why use gmail in first place.

The user passphrase is far weaker than an S/MIME or PGP key. That negates the point of having an S/MIME or PGP key, which is in effect a very, very long passphrase stored clientside. The difference between the two (certificate and passphrase) is important to cryptography: for this, see any discussion of the difference between SSH with keys and passphrases (or preferably both in combination). There is an advantage to having both, but there is no security advantage in having a much weaker link alone guard a much stronger one. Take a second to reread that carefully.

There is no JS solution to the problem of securing gmail; otherwise, one would have been written long ago. People have thought about the issue and realized that there is no good solution. That is why people have created solutions like the Firefox addon for S/MIME and the MyMail Crypt for gmail: they are plugins for a reason. You should try understanding that reason, because it will advance your knowledge of the dangers and limitations of cryptography.

I'm not saying this to be an asshole, but because you demonstrate a certain hubris when it comes to what you believe can be done with Javascript and how security works. That hubris could hurt some project that you work on, and that pain is unnecessary. You will be better able to contribute valuable work to your business or the community if you take the time now to learn the limits of what you should and should not do with encryption keys.

I posted this back when Wuala shut down. Seems relevant again just a few months later.

I've been using Sync.com for the past year. They've been sort of in beta but releasing features. 5GB free.

SpiderOak is decent but they recently dropped their free plan, so not sure what's going on there.

MEGA was great but Kim.com said last week in Wired that the company is run by criminals

Tresorit is good but expensive. Maybe that's why they've been around so long.
Bitcasa pulled a Wuala last year and closed down their consumer cloud storage after a lawsuit. That's pretty much it.
There's OwnCloud which is do it yourself. And BitTorrent Sync which is kind of do it yourself but they've been adjusting pricing so it's bait and switch as well.

Dunno if this means anything anymore, but they also post a warrant canary.

If you are going to store your data with somebody else, encrypt it before you upload it and you keep the encryption key.

Take a look at SpiderOak - roughly, "Cloud Truecrypt".

I've been using Sync.com for the past year. They've been sort of in beta but releasing features. 5GB free.

SpiderOak is decent but they recently dropped their free plan, so not sure what's going on there.

MEGA was great but Kim.com said last week in Wired that the company is run by criminals

Tresorit is good but expensive. Maybe that's why they've been around so long.
Bitcasa pulled a Wuala last year and closed down their consumer cloud storage after a lawsuit. That's pretty much it. There's OwnCloud which is do it yourself. And BitTorrent Sync which is kind of do it yourself but they've been adjusting pricing so it's bait and switch as well.

So, no canary?
SpiderOak updates their canary every six months:
https://spideroak.com/canary

They can post the records on an FTP server, on an HTTP server, using SpiderOak, using OnionShare, or use any of a number of other methods.

My problem is that I want to control my data by placing it on systems under my control. Storing everything on Google is fine for Eric Schmidt because Eric Schmidt owns (many shares and a significant amount of control) of Google. Storing everything on Google is not so good for me because I don't.

And that's the real issue. Google and Facebook's entire business model is to violate my privacy. I don't know if Dropbox does anything with your data, but they've definitely chosen convenience over security. I'd rather store my stuff on SpiderOak than Dropbox. As long as my data are available to somebody other than me, then my data are vulnerable to hackers and immoral government officials.

> Aren't you supposed to delete this stuff as soon as you transmit it and receive payment confirmation?

One of the common "modern" hacks is to capture the data in transit. Like infecting the card-swipe machine to scrape the data out of RAM. So even when it isn't "stored" anywhere permanently the hackers still get copies. That was one of the techniques used against Target.

You might consider checking out Spideroak.com as they claim to not store your password on their servers so that it is impossible for them to decrypt your files without you. Also they have a decent synchronization client for all major OSs. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Spideroak, just a user.

pwSafe is a port of Password Safe for OS X and iOS. It isn't free, but it is cheap. I have a password vault that is synced among OS X and Windows clients via SpiderOak, with Password Safe on Windows and pwSafe on OS X able to read and write to it with no problems.

Try SpiderOak. Free 2 GB, zero-knowledge, secure. Works on a load of OSs and devices. I'm a completely satisfied customer.

Or ... get a free dynamic DNS hostname (there are still plenty available) and take a few minutes to learn about SSH/SFTP (and SSHGuard if you are using passwords) and set up your own personal file server. It doesn't have to allow shell access.

Now the companies can do whatever they want because you did the little bit of learning it took not to care.

Try SpiderOak. Free 2 GB, zero-knowledge, secure. Works on a load of OSs and devices.

I'm a completely satisfied customer.

For non-savvy users: I recommend Tresorit. I really like the interface, and they seem to have security as one of their primary focuses. Everything you store on Tresorit is encrypted before it leaves your computer / device.

For more savvy users: SpiderOak. Its interface is ... more than a little bit convoluted. But it's got all the same security and encryption that I like about Tresorit, plus file versioning and a web interface.

I'll stick with SpiderOak and TarSnap Fully encrypted, zero knowledge from their end. A bit more money but good peace of mind.

What other solution is there? Now that most Fortune 500 companies have outsourced their IT services, what the heck is the point of worrying about other entities having access to this information?

Well you could pick a cloud provider that does not know your encryption key at all. That way you get the the advantages of collaboration without the public exposure.
Or you could set up OwnCloud.

Admittedly these to not offer all the advantages of Plus and Drive.

Or just start out with SpiderOak to start with.

Or better, keep YOUR data where it belongs, in YOUR possession. Encrypted or not the safest place for your data is offline where you know it is safe, not on an active machine tied to the Internet. For crying out loud, people!

My vote goes to SpiderOak for zero-knowledge, dedupe'd backups.

Or just start out with SpiderOak to start with.

SpiderOak is quite decent. It's not the fastest at syncing, but their compression and deduplication works very well.

They claim zero-knowledge, have clients for Mac OSX, Linux, Windows, iOS and Android. You get 2 GB for free, give it a shot!

SpiderOak would be a good one. It's cross-platform, FOSS-friendly, and has a rather impressive feature-set. I'm frankly surprised they aren't better known by now.

Currently, SpiderOak isn't very private when sharing (hence the "expectation" sentance above). The core reason is that their sharing keys are server-side (see - https://spideroak.com/blog/20120507010958-increasing-transparency-alongside-privacy). Conversly, all Lockbox keys (and certificates) are purely client-side (there are no server-side keys) so that the "cloud" only ever stores encrypted blobs and is totally "blind" to all information being exchanged. If Lockbox got a legal (or NSA) demand they couldn't hand over anything except encrypted blobs of data (as they just don't have the keys). If SpiderOak got a legal demand, they'd have to hand over their shared data (as they do have access to the sharing keys).

Another service offering:

SpiderOak uses AES256 in CFB mode and HMAC-SHA256. SpiderOak uses a nested series of key scopes: a new key for each folder, version of a file, and the individual data blocks that versions of files are composed from. Having keys with such limited scope allows for selective sharing of chosen portions of your data while keeping the remainder private.

        Most importantly, however, the keys are never stored plaintext on the SpiderOak server. They are encrypted with 256 bit AES, using a key created from your password by the key derivation/strengthening algorithm PBKDF2 (using sha256), with a minimum of 16384 rounds, and 32 bytes of random data ("salt"). This approach prevents brute force and pre-computation or database attacks against the key. This means that a user who knows her password can generate the outer level encryption key using PBKDF2 and the salt, then decipher the outer level keys, and be on the way to decrypting her data. Without knowledge of the password, however, the data is unreadable.

        SpiderOak accounts also include a 3072 bit public/private RSA key pair. This is currently not used for anything, but is included with all accounts with the expectation that SpiderOak will add multi-user private collaborative and sharing features which would necessitate the use of the the public/private keys.

https://spideroak.com/ .

Oh, forgot, go carry on your argument with SpiderOak. Start here: https://spideroak.com/engineering_matters where they explain exactly how it works.

When you first set up the account they may be the same, but from then on out, you need never access the website again. But if you do they don't write it to disk. So if you dont trust SSL, just don't visit the website. Do everything through the client.

You can't change the password on the website. (Why? Because they recognize that is insecure). You can only change it in the client application (a locally installed piece of software), and as soon as you do that your machine gets busy re-encoding all of your data on their site from your synced directories with the new key.

They do not retain the new key on their site.
See: https://spideroak.com/faq/questions/3/does_spideroak_use_encryption_when_storing_and_transferring_data/

They can't even see directory names or file names. They intentionally have no way to decrypt your data.
If you lose your key, you are SOL.
They intend to Opensource the Client side.

Check out SpiderOak. You set up your keys and you're the only one who has the keys. Even if the NSA came with a warrant, SpiderOak would only be able to hand over the ciphertext/garbled blob.

(yes, this is a referral link). Take off the referrer code if you really want to screw me out of some free storage, but in either case, go at least look at SpiderOak.

If its all encrypted its safe

Not if they control the encryption key and it is shared among all users. But there are much better solutions than Dropbox. With SpiderOak your computer generates your own unique encryption key, it is at no point ever transmitted to their servers, and there is no way they can gain access to it.

It can be done. Your password is hashed once into some random bit of strings and data, and that is used to encrypt your content. Then that hash and your password are concatenated together and hashed again, and that is sent to Google to authenticate you. Google gets a unique secure token to identify you, which nobody can know unless they have your password. But Google doesn't get the original password, so they can't decrypt your data.

A few services supposedly work this way already, like https://spideroak.com/ backup. Supposedly SpiderOak can't read your data at all - but since only most of their source code is open, you have to trust that they're telling the truth. For all we know, it's an NSA front.

Check out SpiderOak! I've been a happy customer for some time. Solid encryption, zero-knowledge cloud storage.

I dropped DropBox a long time ago other than for moving things around that only support DropBox.

I've been using SpiderOak instead of Dropbox for a while now for just the reasons you mention.

It's not the very first cloud storage service to do this, but so far as my audit shows, it's the first big one to do it properly.

Take a look at Spideroak and explain why you think they did it wrong.

I've used SpiderOak for about 10 months now, and it's the only cloud backup service that I trust won't be handing my data over to anyone. Everything encrypts client-side, and they (supposedly) have no way of accessing this data even if forced. It's basically online backup for those paranoid about privacy.

The client does need several improvements, but overall I'm quite pleased. The company offers extra free permanent storage to those who refer others, email with a special promotional code, or participate in online "tests". My favorite was their context for System Administrator Appreciation Day, where you had to fix a broken system and were rewarded with storage space. The contest is over, but the challenge is still up: https://sotss.spideroak.com/ (It was originally won if you managed to get the right program running, and it would ask for your username for the reward space. This doesn't seem to happen anymore.)

So far I've managed to get 29 GB of free space with them, which is permanent and accessible to even free users. So far, SpiderOak is the only cloud backup I've seen that has this "zero knowledge" service. If there are others, I'd love to hear about them.

SpiderOak still kicks its ass. Supports Linux, very configurable and more free space.

Not true:

https://spideroak.com/faq/questions/3/does_spideroak_use_encryption_when_storing_and_transferring_data/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/spideroak-dropbox-for-the-security-obsessive/

Disclamer: I have not used this service.

Here are some more (same disclaimer):

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/secure-files-3-encrypted-dropbox-alternatives/

Q: "What was the name of your first dog?"
A: oiq387jhoxzlpo8q )7y9l;iop;a jnls7ul.l

Keepass is your friend.

Keepass combined with SpiderOak is your portable, mobile, goes-everywhere-you-go friend :)

This is how SpiderOak does it. https://spideroak.com/faq/questions/13/what_if_i_forget_my_spideroak_password/

This is how SpiderOak does it. https://spideroak.com/faq/questions/13/what_if_i_forget_my_spideroak_password/

https://spideroak.com/

Conveniently left out of the summary and TFA is that this only applies to DATA YOU EXPLICITLY MAKE PUBLIC in your Google Drive.
Which is the same policy as Google Docs had, same as Picasa had, etc.
If you mark a document public then it can be searched for and found. (But in my tests, its rarely searchable - probably my stuff is too boring even for Google's spiders).

Foremost in Google's policy it states:

Information we share
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:
With your consent
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.

So if you mark it private, it means its almost as private as it can be while still being in the cloud. Of course Google has to honor subpoenas, but your next great novel will not appear in someone's search results if mark it private.

If you want better privacy for your commercial cloud storage your best bet is SpiderOak which stores everything encrypted with an encryption key that even SpiderOak doesn't know. They use client-side decryption, and therefore couldn't hand over your stuff even at gunpoint.

I'm bothered by how the SpiderOak team is confident to the level of foolishness. "margin of error of 0.0000%"? Really? Anyone who believes that needs a serious reality check, and their sloppy thinking about failures is surely a business issue. I would wager that a single judge in Northbrook, IL could obliterate access to any backups I placed there. It takes more than redundant power, network connectivity, and servers to make a reliable backup platform.

I'm bothered by how the SpiderOak team is confident to the level of foolishness. "margin of error of 0.0000%"? Really? Anyone who believes that needs a serious reality check, and their sloppy thinking about failures is surely a business issue. I would wager that a single judge in Northbrook, IL could obliterate access to any backups I placed there. It takes more than redundant power, network connectivity, and servers to make a reliable backup platform.

• If you're looking for privacy, don't store sensitive data in the cloud.
• If you have to, avoid companies which have an obvious interest in your connections, your data, and your profile.
• If you need strong transparent client-side encryption, you can either use a TrueCrypt container (like olsmeister mentioned), or use an alternative provider which offers this feature: for example, SpiderOak or Wuala. Dropbox, as you mentioned is not secure, because they hold your keys.
• Avoid the US and US-based companies for storage of sensitive data. The Patriot Act requires Google to give the DHS access to their servers, even if they are physically located in the EU. Wuala is operated by LaCie, a Swiss company; they guarantee that customer data will always be stored on their servers, which are located in the EU or Switzerland.

I'm not affiliated with either SpiderOak or LaCie, but we've researched possible cloud storage services last month, and settled on Wuala. So far, no problems.

Is there a cloud based company that will not take a peek at any of the information stored on it's servers?

Yes: SpiderOak. They are physically incapable of looking at your data:

Your SpiderOak data is readable to you alone. Most online storage systems only encrypt your data during transmission, meaning anyone with physical access to the servers your data is stored on (such as the company's staff) could have access to it. Or, even if your data is encrypted during storage, your password (or set of encryption keys) is often stored along with your data, thus making its easily decoded by anyone with local access to those servers.

With SpiderOak, you create your password on your own computer -- not on a web form received by SpiderOak servers. Once created, a strong key derivation function is used to generate encryption keys using that password, and no trace of your original password is ever uploaded to SpiderOak with your stored data.

SpiderOak's encryption is comprehensive -- even with physical access to the storage servers, SpiderOak staff cannot know even the names of your files and folders. On the server side, all that SpiderOak staff can see, are sequentially numbered containers of encrypted data.

This means that you alone have responsibility for remembering your password or 'Password Hint' (which you can create to help you remember) allowing SpiderOak to create a true 'zero-knowledge environment' – keeping your data as safe and secure as it can possibly be.

Is there a cloud based company that will not take a peek at any of the information stored on it's servers?

Yes: SpiderOak. They are physically incapable of looking at your data:

Your SpiderOak data is readable to you alone. Most online storage systems only encrypt your data during transmission, meaning anyone with physical access to the servers your data is stored on (such as the company's staff) could have access to it. Or, even if your data is encrypted during storage, your password (or set of encryption keys) is often stored along with your data, thus making its easily decoded by anyone with local access to those servers.

With SpiderOak, you create your password on your own computer -- not on a web form received by SpiderOak servers. Once created, a strong key derivation function is used to generate encryption keys using that password, and no trace of your original password is ever uploaded to SpiderOak with your stored data.

SpiderOak's encryption is comprehensive -- even with physical access to the storage servers, SpiderOak staff cannot know even the names of your files and folders. On the server side, all that SpiderOak staff can see, are sequentially numbered containers of encrypted data.

This means that you alone have responsibility for remembering your password or 'Password Hint' (which you can create to help you remember) allowing SpiderOak to create a true 'zero-knowledge environment' – keeping your data as safe and secure as it can possibly be.

Then go with a zero-knowledge provider like SpiderOak. All of the data is encrypted on their servers. Your password is encrypted before it even leaves your computer. (If you lose your password, your recovery option is "I'm fucked".)

Moreover, even if the feds came knocking on their door, all they could say is that you have x gigs of data on this particular server. The company can't even view your files, no matter how much they (or law enforcement, or a court) might want to.

Unfortunately many countries have laws under which you can be forced to give up your encryption keys to law enforcement. God only knows how the US has resisted implementing laws like this so far, although I don't see this situation lasting long considering how the government lately seems hell bent on eliminating the human rights of its citizens.

Then go with a zero-knowledge provider like SpiderOak. All of the data is encrypted on their servers. Your password is encrypted before it even leaves your computer. (If you lose your password, your recovery option is "I'm fucked".)

Moreover, even if the feds came knocking on their door, all they could say is that you have x gigs of data on this particular server. The company can't even view your files, no matter how much they (or law enforcement, or a court) might want to.

When you rely on a 3rd party for cloud storage and that 3rd party has a basically nonexistent SLA for an under 30 day outage, it becomes your own fault for making a horrible business decision.

when you take a 3rd party cloud storage solution and implement it yourself for your enterprise, guess what? it works. And if there's issues, you know who's to blame.
https://spideroak.com/diy/ - this is one example of but many.

Isn't that what Spideroak does? Personally I use Dropbox for sharing photos I don't care about, and Spideroak for storing documents.

Phillip.