goli

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About goli

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. If you already run HTTP servers on both boxes that do HTTPS properly, you could make Sync only listen to localhost and use your HTTP servers as local proxies. That way the SSL certificates of Apache, nginx or whatever apply instead of the certificate of Sync.
  2. Hey there. Could you elaborate a bit on that removed identity folder situation? Is it a bug of the 2.3.5 version, so waiting for a 2.3.6 or later release hopefully does not suffer from that? Or is it a general thing about handling that identity folder content which might or might not drop that folder, no matter if I jump to 2.3.5 now or wait for an additional release? Regards, Stephan.
  3. Hey there. As mentioned by Moe, there are plenty of threads around regarding this use case. Just searching for "truecrypt" should give you tons of information. As for my personal preference: I started with Truecrypt myself long time ago but realized it wasn't really a good idea, long before there was any sign of btsync on the horizon. That's basically because of write lock issues, block sizes, growing containers and fragmentation. This can be solved by container settings of course, but I just don't feel very well with those, so I dropped container based encryption at all.Then I moved to encfs. It's file based encryption and thus solves nearly every issue container based encryption has when being synced. That's not only related to btsync but to any kind of synchronization tool in general, so diff and rsync have the very same prerequists to a container being structured to play nicely.After some performance issues and stability issues with encfs on Windows I finally reached Boxcryptor. They have two products, the current proprietary one which nearly only works with other Boxcryptor clients and the "Boxcryptor Classic" which is 100% compatible to encrypted folders created by encfs. And here I am, using a plain encfs compatible encrypted folder with Boxcryptor Classic on Windows, OS-X and Android, nicely synced by btsync. You see: When it comes to synchronization, I'm a huge fan of encfs nowadays . Regards, Stephan.
  4. Hey there. I would like to set a name for a given share in the UI which does *not* reflect the file system folder it points to. I think about creating an arbitrary sync share, go to folder preferences in the sync UI and find there a blank field "display name" being blank by default and showing the current folder name as placeholder. Here is my use case: I run a couple of EncFS mounts where an individual fragment inside is shared by sync. Think about this unencrypted structure: * EncFS ** Private ** Music ** Stuff This results in an encrypted structure: * EncFS ** qwihvlkergoiu ** knwefiu32rlkj ** jlghrjlgrj Now I only want to sync "qwihvlkergoiu", so I created a share that only points to that directory -- but I don't want it to be named "qwihvlkergoiu" in my snyc UI but "Music". On Winsows that's pretty easy by utiliziung "mklink". Just create a link named "Music" pointing to "qwihvlkergoiu" and make sync not share "qwihvlkergoiu" but "Music". That works pretty well. Now I don't only use Windows but OS-X as well, where that kind of link isn't possible. I tried creating a regular symlink and make sync use that "Music" symlink as sync source folder, but the UI fetches the original name "qwihvlkergoiu" and displays exactly that. This goes for every situation where the actual folder name is not up to me as a user but forced by other software, like the "/etc/configuration" folder if I decide to use sync for maintaining my OpenWRT settings, or like the "/etc/apache2" folder if I decide to use sync for maintaining my linux based apache setup. Regards, Stephan.
  5. Hey Helen. Thank you for your response. That's essentially what I wanted to hear. I guess I'll switch from 1.4 to 2.0 in a couple of days. But there's one thing left after you mentioned the license not being bound to a specific identity. Which feature exaclty makes sure to use a single license only on a single identity? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to do that. If I'm going to buy licenses, those of course will be as much as required according to the number of persons involved. The linked FAQ page says I can add the license to a sync instance by using the .btskey file. When I set up a little testing environment, let's say tow virtual windows machines in a network not connected to the outside world but only in a private LAN. Assume I'm putting a purchased license in such a testing setup. Is there any technical thing that prevents me from deleting the testing environment from my system and using that single licens on my daily driver computer afterwards? Regards, Stephan.
  6. Hey there. Could you please elaborate on how and when exactly the license check is done? Having the "LAN License" mechanism in place sounds like not having license servers to be contected. That's actually *the* main reason for me currently not to use v2: I had the impression some online license check was going on that required other servers then those being 100% controled by myselfe. So, could you please describe the actual icense validation process on this very example: * I want to use v2. * I don't want to share my data with others (currently), only three computers and two android devices all under the same sync identity since all of them are mine (laptop, gaming computer, office computer, NAS in the basement, daily mobile phone and daily tablet). * It's only about three shares. * I just don't know if I'm going to use "pro" or if "free" is enough. Since I only share personal data (music), the "free" should be enough. But just in case I get permisson from my offices IT department to use it for business stuf as well, I'll gladly upgrade to "pro": * I don't use tracker servers, relay servers and DHT, only known hosts. Does this scenario require any of the "sync" processes to contact BitTorrent servers for license verification? What happens if one day BitTorrent decides to go out of business. In case I go with the "free" version, will that still keep working or does ist stop because of not being able to contact BitTorrent license servers? The fact of having the "LAN License" mechanism in place makes me hope that no Licenserver is required to keep "free" mode working. That, in fact, could be *the* major point for my corporation to consider this product for sharing internal data. [edit] The very answer I hope for is much shorter than the question. So you might just say yes/no to those assertions: A license server is only used to retrieve a license file for a given identity. If no license file is available for a given identity (no matter if that is because of no license server is available or if the license server has no file to provide for me), the client just uses the "free" mode. The entire license check is done on client side by validating the license file (cryptographic signature) and making sure the license file matches the current identity. No server connection asking "is the current license file still valid" is established. Regards, Stephan.
  7. Hey there. I wouldn't expect that to work any time soon. Well, I wouldn't expect it to work at all. There is one thing with recordings on smart TVs: They don't want them to be shared. I know a couple of devices from Sony, Phillips, Samsung and LG. All of them are perfectly fine with playing videos from nearly arbitrary USB devices. But all of them refuse to store live TV record files on them until the USB device isn't encrypted by the actual TV. This means: If you record live TV on that USB device and move it to a regular PC, that PC wouldn't be able to read those recordings. Having asked all of those manufacturer support channels to explain why that's the case, most of them just don't respond. Only LG responded by saing most pay tv providers wouldn't cooperate with them if they this was possible. Whatever this means. Might be technical stuff, might be only marketing. Regards, Stephan.
  8. Hey there. Using telnet, what about "netstat | grep btsync" or "pgrep"? Or if your NAS provides the web ui of sync, you could make your monitorig tool expect the web ui to respond properly by simply fetching the http result. Regards, Stephan.
  9. Awesome, 0104006e works. Any hints on how you got to this value? I don't see any correlation to any btsync app version number.
  10. Hey there. The registry key used to work properly for a couple of days now. I just upgraded to the lastest version, which is 1.4.110. That one either already comes with this key or didn't overwrite it. Either way, the registry key is in place just like it was during the last week but 1.4.110 just keeps prompting the UAC window. Any hints? Regards, Stephan.
  11. Hey there. Are you up to that error and close to releasing something or do you need more logs for investigation? I think i have the very same issue here. My music lib is ~5000 tracks and ~500 folders that sum up to 28GB of size. 295 of those files (2.85GB) don't get synced corretly. There are files on my mobile phone, but their revision isn't the latest one. "Touching" the files on one of my computers caused my other Linux and Windows nodes to realign but my mobile phone still shows the version from a couple of weeks ago. File system on my mobile phone is perfectly writable. I still have 30GB of space left and creating folders and files works just nice. Even creating new files on my android phone and having them synced to my computers works nicely. My Android is a Sony Xperia Z3 Compact running plain sony Android 4.4.4, no root. Target device is my external MicroSD card. So, should I send in some more logs on this or do you just know what's wrong and only need some time for fixing? Regards, Stephan.
  12. Thank you, that's an answer. If the drawback is the very same for all iOS devices I might get my hands on some devices that don't work with my car but can show me how sync performs. Regards, Stephan.
  13. Hey there. Sry if this question has been answered somewhere else but the search function doesn't allow me to search "iOS" and searching for "iPhone 4" doesn't work well. I want to know if btsync (both vresions, 1.4.x as well as 2.x) work with iPhone 4s. As to some shops, they come with iOS 5, 6 or 7. I don't have any apple devices yet, and I never wanted one. So I cannot check myself, unfortunately. My car (BMW from 2007) doesn't support USB devices but only comes with a 30 pin apple dock connector. Searching the net for compatible apple devices gives various results. Some say 30-pin to lightning adaptors work well, others say they don't and I must stick to apple devices that come with 30 pin connectors natively. To make a long story short: I might be forced to buy an iPhone 4s since that's the only device having 30 pin apple connector and at least 64GB memory (except the iPhone classic, but 300€ for an iPhone 4s would be better then 600€ for an iPod classic). But because the iPhone 4s is a pretty old device and I don't know anybody nearby still owning such a thing, I must ask here befor buying. Regards, Stephan.
  14. Hey there. I doubt those features have changed from 1.4 to 2 significantly. The "search on LAN" is nice because it broadcasts. So every host being reachable through broadcasts is covered. There are two drawbacks. The first one is: That only covers the current LAN segment. I could e.g. create one IP segment per team and have a couple of teams. They are free to communicate whatever they want, so firewall rules are *not* what I want to set up. The second one is: Whenever I sign in to a public WiFi like Starbucks or any hotel, I need to disable the "search on LAN" thing since there is a chance the firwall just blacklists me because of creating torrent like traffic. The "know hosts" list is completely different. Here I put single host names in that are *not* reachable through broadcasts. I run a couple of VPS in different data centers. I don't want them to be on DHL tables since that's just not necessary. I know their static IPs and they never change. I really doubt one can combine those features. Broadcasts are meant to stop on network segment borders, and this is for a reason. Adding "foreign LAN segments" to the broadcast thingy would mean dropping the broadcast feature and use a "brute force IP range" instead. That's clearly not what I want. Instead, you could go for something like a "broadcast relay". That's something your router (or any other host having different legs in different network segments) could do. If you look for regular UPNP (which is used for DLNA, for example), you use tools like "igmpproxy" which does that job. I haven't digged into the sync broadcast. There are chances protocol changes to the broadcast mechanism can make it IGMP compliant so igmpproxy works with no changes. Might this be worth a feature request? Adjusting the broadcast thingy to default IGMP? Regards, Stephan.
  15. Hey there. As I stated somewhere else (don't know, could be some pages back in this thread): That's quite easy. * Create an asymmetric encryption key pair * Put the public part in the binaries and ship it to the customer * Sign the string "licensed until 12/30/2015" with the private part * Hand both, that string as well as the calculated signature in one file to the user and call it "license file" => done. Now every user has to issue a license file every couple of months and no client needs to contact any licensing server since the validation can be done by the client itself. This procedure 100% fits the "only one license per user, as much client computers as you want" scenario. But I really hope bittorrent rethinks the whole situation. 40 bugs a year is quite a number if no storage is provided. The marketing page is completely wrong by comparing storage capacities. The number is not "unlimited" as stated but more like "zero, you need to probide that yourself". Regards, Stephan.