5 ms·

They're trying to avoid running the next Mega. It also posts the unencrypted hash of the file you uploaded to their server so that they can do DMCA takedowns.

They're trying to avoid running the next Mega. It also posts the unencrypted hash of the file you uploaded to their server so that they can do DMCA takedowns. There are other existing solutions like https://share.riseup.net https://share.riseup.net which do not do things like this too and which do allow multiple downloads.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
So anything you send needs zipping up with a "salt" file first in order to bypass the hash check? Is there an add-on to do that for me yet? Do they communicate that sending any known file is non-private? If I email myself a pop-song, does the client automatically start the extradition proceedings for the RIAA; or does that come later? /s
- ceph_ 9y ago
  If you're savy enough to do that, then you are also competent enough to send the file in numerous other ways. Your not the target audience. Also, you wouldn't need add a file. Zipping it alone would be enough to change the hash.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I assumed zipping to be determinative and that a standard gzip would lead to a "known" hash, ergo the idea to create a unknown zip file by adding some bytes.
    - ceph_ 9y ago
      It would be determinative only if all the header fields[1] stayed identical. A change in something like file name or mod time, would change the hash of the zipped archive without affecting the hash of the actual file. I don't think you can expect the file mod time to be identical, as it isn't preserved through many forms of file distribution. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)#File_headers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)#File_headers
wongarsu 9y ago
>It also posts the unencrypted hash of the file you uploaded to their server so that they can do DMCA takedowns Why would they do that? It's not like anyone can send them DMCA notices: the act of verifying that the upload violates your copyright already removes the file from the service. And I don't see anything in the DMCA that requires them to search for offenders, they just have to act once they become aware?
- problems 9y ago
  Don't ask me, it seems ridiculous to me.
- kuschku 9y ago
  > And I don't see anything in the DMCA that requires them to search for offenders, they just have to act once they become aware? The Megaupload case sadly is a good example of what no one wants to repeat, as there this was exactly argued - that, once notified, the hoster has to ensure this file won't ever be uploaded again, and all other copies are removed, too.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

So anything you send needs zipping up with a "salt" file first in order to bypass the hash check? Is there an add-on to do that for me yet? Do they communicate that sending any known file is non-private? If I email myself a pop-song, does the client automatically start the extradition proceedings for the RIAA; or does that come later? /s

ceph_ 9y ago
If you're savy enough to do that, then you are also competent enough to send the file in numerous other ways. Your not the target audience. Also, you wouldn't need add a file. Zipping it alone would be enough to change the hash.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I assumed zipping to be determinative and that a standard gzip would lead to a "known" hash, ergo the idea to create a unknown zip file by adding some bytes.
  - ceph_ 9y ago
    It would be determinative only if all the header fields[1] stayed identical. A change in something like file name or mod time, would change the hash of the zipped archive without affecting the hash of the actual file. I don't think you can expect the file mod time to be identical, as it isn't preserved through many forms of file distribution. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)#File_headers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)#File_headers

wongarsu 9y ago

>It also posts the unencrypted hash of the file you uploaded to their server so that they can do DMCA takedowns Why would they do that? It's not like anyone can send them DMCA notices: the act of verifying that the upload violates your copyright already removes the file from the service. And I don't see anything in the DMCA that requires them to search for offenders, they just have to act once they become aware?

problems 9y ago
Don't ask me, it seems ridiculous to me.
kuschku 9y ago
> And I don't see anything in the DMCA that requires them to search for offenders, they just have to act once they become aware? The Megaupload case sadly is a good example of what no one wants to repeat, as there this was exactly argued - that, once notified, the hoster has to ensure this file won't ever be uploaded again, and all other copies are removed, too.