| 1 |
Am 02.01.2012 22:50, schrieb James Broadhead: |
| 2 |
> I have a pile of files, and a personal svn repo totalling around 13GiB |
| 3 |
> which I want to back up to cheaply to 'the cloud'. I would also like |
| 4 |
> it to be non-trivial for someone with access to the cloud servers to |
| 5 |
> decrypt my data. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have a 50GB free account for Box.net, but would consider others if |
| 8 |
> they have significant advantages. The box.net account is only allowed |
| 9 |
> upload files of max 100MiB at a time. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Now one problem facing me is that most cloud services don't give |
| 12 |
> assurances of bit parity, so I'd like to be able to recover most of |
| 13 |
> the files if I lost my local copies and there were bits missing from |
| 14 |
> the uploaded backup. This makes the one-big-encrypted-file approach a |
| 15 |
> no-go. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> My current approach is to use split-tar, with the intention of |
| 18 |
> encrypting each file separately. (Is this worse / equivalent to having |
| 19 |
> one big file with ECB ? ) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I could be wrong but I don't think you will find any reasonable |
| 22 |
encryption tool that only offers encryption equivalent to ECB. The |
| 23 |
number of files should not matter as the encryption tool can use a |
| 24 |
randomized IV with CBC. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> http://www.informatik-vollmer.de/software/split-tar.php |
| 27 |
> ...but this seems to have difficulty sticking below the 100MiB |
| 28 |
> individual file limit (possibly there are too many large files in the |
| 29 |
> svn history). |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Why not split them further when the files are still above the 100M limit |
| 33 |
after splitting them with that tool? split + cat should do the trick. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Any thoughts? I'm sure that many of you face this problem. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Well, I have no experience with their service (although I always planned |
| 39 |
to use them), but maybe you can try these guys [1]. They don't have file |
| 40 |
size limits and support everything working over ssh (including sshfs) as |
| 41 |
well as duplicity for file encryption. Of course, having only US |
| 42 |
locations could be a no-go depending on your legal |
| 43 |
considerations/restrictions. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
[1] http://www.rsync.net/ |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Regards, |
| 48 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives