Ask Slashdot: Which Encrypted Cloud Storage Provider?

An anonymous reader writes "Almost three years ago, I started looking for a cloud storage service. Encryption and the "zero-knowledge" concept were not concerns. Frankly, after two weeks testing services, it boiled down to one service I used for almost 2 years. It was perfect — in the technical sense — because it simply works as advertised and is one of the cheapest for 500GB. But this year, I decided changing that service for another one, that would encrypt my files before leaving my machine. Some of these services call themselves 'zero-knowledge' services, because (as they claim) clear text does not leave your host: they only receive encrypted data — keys or passwords are not sent. I did all testing I could, with the free bit of their services, and then, chose one of them. After a while, when the load got higher (more files, more folders, more GB...), my horror story began. I started experiencing sync problems of all sorts. In fact, I have paid for and tested another service and both had the same issues with sync. Worse, one of them could not even handle restoring files correctly. I had to restore from my local backup more than once and I ended up losing files for real. In your experience, which service (or services) are really able to handle more than a hundred files, in sync within 5+ hosts, without messing up (deleting, renaming, duplicating) files and folders?"

Ooh I know this one

[symbolset]

Build a couple Backblaze boxes and work out a deal with some KC residents. That gets you 180TB offsite stuff with whatever sw leverage you want to lay on top of that.

Give it up.

[philip.paradis]

Write yourself a simple set of scripts that use rdiff-backup or rsnapshot to perform differential/incremental backups to an internal host, make a secondary mirror encrypted at a file level with GPG/PGP, and use rsync to sync the encrypted mirror to several offsite hosts. Done. If this level of security matters to you, do it yourself.

None of them.

[MrL0G1C]

After all of this NSA business, why would you ask which storage provider keeps you safe when clearly none of them do.

If you want your data encrypted, why would you not do it yourself, then you don't need to pay for an encrypted storage provider because you can upload your encrypted data to any storage provider. Paying extra for something you're not guaranteed to get is not very intelligent.

This article brought to you by an anonymous reader / encrypted storage provider.

Re:Ooh I know this one

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the submission is actually a troll. Cloud? Hello? Anyone using the expression "The Cloud" is either a troll or lost cause.

Either

1) Put your stuff on TPB.

or

2) If you are serious about actually storing stuff, get yourself a server and secure it.

Now shut up.

Not very helpful, eh?

Here, let me elaborate. Either contribute to the conversation, or kindly STFU.

Cloud can work. It all depends on your own SLA (and their ability to actually work as advertised), which is the technical dilemma being debated here, so knock it off with your snarky attitude as if someone just brought up a Kardashian using Windows 98. "Cloud", much like the internet, is likely here to stay for a while whether you like it or not.

And over history, I'm sure the people who were "serious" about storage have lost a shitload of data even with tape backup too, so don't act like that solution is magically bulletproof.

Re:Ooh I know this one

[SuricouRaven]

Cloud is not a technical term. It's a business term.

Re:Ooh I know this one

[BrokenHalo]

2) If you are serious about actually storing stuff, get yourself a server and secure it.

I hate those FTFY posts, but if you are really serious about storing stuff, then you should do it yourself. The so-called "cloud" services might be convenient (depending on the cost and availability of your internet connection), but they are totally out of your control, especially if you care even the slightest about security.