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 1RhtBT-0002IW-2y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:29:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F8CF21C0D5; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE93A21C0D5 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RhtAB-0003Ma-Qz for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:27:39 +0700 Received: by werm12 with SMTP id m12so9380454wer.40 for ; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.216.139.204 with SMTP id c54mr28565053wej.13.1325554055633; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.78.208 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.78.208 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:27:35 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Secure Cloud Backup From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d99fa49dda5204b5959aad X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: 829e3626-88aa-4414-a275-79432c17725b X-Archives-Hash: 4a29bda43b5a225238557aa5711c5496 --0016e6d99fa49dda5204b5959aad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 3, 2012 4:55 AM, "James Broadhead" wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 ? ) > 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). > > Any thoughts? I'm sure that many of you face this problem. > Make tarball. Encrypt. Split using split. Protect with par2 using the -l option to limit size. Upload. Rgds, --0016e6d99fa49dda5204b5959aad Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 3, 2012 4:55 AM, "James Broadhead" <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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'. =C2=A0I wou= ld also like
> it to be non-trivial for someone with access to the cloud servers to > decrypt my data.
>
> I have a 50GB free account for Box.net, but would consider others if > they have significant advantages. The box.n= et account is only allowed
> upload files of max 100MiB at a time.
>
> 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 o= f
> 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<= br> > no-go.
>
> 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 ? )
> ht= tp://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<= br> > svn history).
>
> Any thoughts? I'm sure that many of you face this problem.
>

Make tarball.

Encrypt.

Split using split.

Protect with par2 using the -l option to limit size.

Upload.

Rgds,

--0016e6d99fa49dda5204b5959aad--