From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Rht0y-0000wD-ON for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:18:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EAB521C03B; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCE821C1C2 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A40204B4 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:16:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=binarywings.net; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=uxrizrhRRqOAXAjZi/8glaCj d9o=; b=mc30Qtew8rRSsdh4r26T1ECaVvU4KbBR4zByzsw6sJoNnLeWVmvR8kwK PNNeHpyHw4yW7zHSNQozezDLjJhhQGSIaidfmEmMpHdv+wVlc1EDg9CWZwp5VFOh XENMK7LW3H8Vu7M8JWxJDGRbyuuMibS2OcH2aZ0ylDbvhGfGQbg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=uxri zrhRRqOAXAjZi/8glaCjd9o=; b=GqZwp/nkToFPVF6X0pahnMRVuSyX7TXiAKB3 IVXi6zB2AW2VX2dzspLGzDaZcfkFZ2fRLcpb1nQM36x4/NyqQ9bb7hMADwgtCpWb W8qzJsR1LRcVrFVNyoX38B1sEdYS2kNg0V71ErXl//VuiG8BaOKzxKO7ZZFstXbv 6vZXU64= X-Sasl-enc: mJVSQDLHe+bmLVIQkujMKuLss5NajRK2eDfmi3v8PTPz 1325553367 Received: from [192.168.5.18] (serv.binarywings.net [83.169.5.6]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39831482485 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:16:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4F0256D0.2050906@binarywings.net> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:16:00 +0100 From: Florian Philipp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111211 Thunderbird/8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Secure Cloud Backup References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD7248A5AA08CAEEA896C82E8" X-Archives-Salt: 7f790b8d-f5cc-435e-b3f4-202324059338 X-Archives-Hash: aa5e23cc915f171a1e9677d49d4ba71f This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD7248A5AA08CAEEA896C82E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 02.01.2012 22:50, schrieb James Broadhead: > I have a pile of files, and a personal svn repo totalling around 13GiB > which I want to back up to cheaply to 'the cloud'. I would also like > it to be non-trivial for someone with access to the cloud servers to > decrypt my data. >=20 > I have a 50GB free account for Box.net, but would consider others if > they have significant advantages. The box.net account is only allowed > upload files of max 100MiB at a time. >=20 > Now one problem facing me is that most cloud services don't give > assurances of bit parity, so I'd like to be able to recover most of > the files if I lost my local copies and there were bits missing from > the uploaded backup. This makes the one-big-encrypted-file approach a > no-go. >=20 > My current approach is to use split-tar, with the intention of > encrypting each file separately. (Is this worse / equivalent to having > one big file with ECB ? ) I could be wrong but I don't think you will find any reasonable encryption tool that only offers encryption equivalent to ECB. The number of files should not matter as the encryption tool can use a randomized IV with CBC. > http://www.informatik-vollmer.de/software/split-tar.php > ...but this seems to have difficulty sticking below the 100MiB > individual file limit (possibly there are too many large files in the > svn history). >=20 Why not split them further when the files are still above the 100M limit after splitting them with that tool? split + cat should do the trick. > Any thoughts? I'm sure that many of you face this problem. >=20 Well, I have no experience with their service (although I always planned to use them), but maybe you can try these guys [1]. They don't have file size limits and support everything working over ssh (including sshfs) as well as duplicity for file encryption. Of course, having only US locations could be a no-go depending on your legal considerations/restrictions. [1] http://www.rsync.net/ Regards, Florian Philipp --------------enigD7248A5AA08CAEEA896C82E8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8CVtUACgkQqs4uOUlOuU+aqQCfcL5k3qbJoylZYw8IK8e/vuuv RSUAn1bHpOvHU622s55fPOicolOQmBzT =/W59 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD7248A5AA08CAEEA896C82E8--