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
  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 ** k
  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
  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 de
  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 a
  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
  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 t
  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
  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 pro