zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. AStone+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-10-20 21:33:12
I used Syncthing for a while between various Linux distros, and I used Syncthing-Fork on my Android tablet, and it was okay when it worked, but it often borked up, and there were so many arcane settings and weird failure modes. I realized that the only reason I was using Syncthing was because it appealed to the vestigial, ultra-paranoid crypto-fascist BOFH in me, and I had grown out of those attitudes.

So today I just use Google Drive and MS OneDrive like a normal person. They work great. I love 'em. They don't fail like Syncthing. They're way more secure, and fully supported. Come join me! The water's fine!

replies(1): >>stavro+Zc
2. stavro+Zc[view] [source] 2024-10-20 23:41:00
>>AStone+(OP)
How is Google Drive "way more secure" than a peer-to-peer encrypted solution?
replies(1): >>AStone+Bd
◧◩
3. AStone+Bd[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-10-20 23:50:57
>>stavro+Zc
Most of us do not have IDS/IPS/DLP tooling in our home networks, nor do we have a 24/7 on-call SOC team monitoring their SIEMs dashboards.

Google and Microsoft provision this stuff, even for consumers, with secure authentication and good protections.

replies(2): >>stavro+lf >>Evidlo+9K
◧◩◪
4. stavro+lf[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-10-21 00:16:28
>>AStone+Bd
Syncthing is peer to peer, the files are already on the device. There's no way requiring one more device to be secure (the server) is better than not requiring it.
◧◩◪
5. Evidlo+9K[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-10-21 07:15:29
>>AStone+Bd
It uses STUN/TURN so your first point is irrelevant.

I don't understand the second. Are you saying Syncthing is less secure?

[go to top]