ChrisH

Yeah. Or you can just move the config files to where the exe is and run it as any user you want.

+1, but there are enough threads about this already.

Right. So the letter scheme only relates to secrets generated by BTSync itself, and generating secrets by some other means and then just adding letters to it in the hope of making them read-only-secrets (as Shagaroo suggested) won't work and is not necessary either, which was my point.

There are other tools for that. Get a Raspberry Pi, connect your HDD to it and let it run BTSync.

Surely the first letter does not control the secret's function.

+1 for the tarpit idea.

+1. That's the reason I have put BTSync.exe on my encrypted volume instead of the system drive, because that way it can only run if the files it syncs are online, too. But yes, "cannot access drive/path" should not be interpreted as "all files have been deleted".

In long: No, IF you trust Bittorrent not to have made any security-relevant programming error. (If you know anything about programming you can ask yourself how probable that is.)

As soon as you want web clients or public links the server has to have your secret (either permanently or transmitted on request) in order to decrypt your files, so the only advantage of BTSync is gone and you can just use Dropbox or whatever. Also I would never use BTSync storage provided by any third party as long as there is no option to give storage providers a read-encrypted-only secret. What would be the point?

Well, multithreading isn't exactly rocket science

That's what the one-time-secrets are for.

I have BTSync running on Bitlocker drives (under Windows Server 2012) without any problems. The \\?\ scheme is just another way of addressing things.

I don't know if that way is really easier (for someone who knows how to find %appdata% at least), but good to know.

That's a good idea, capi. Also in past versions you had the problem that the last peer added (in that case your server) will be regarded as having the newest version of every file, thus overwriting changed files on other peers. I'm not sure if that has been fixed yet.

Well, yes. That's exactly what a tracker does - how did you expect the devices should find each other? In my understanding the tracker has a hash of the secret plus the IP/Port of devices with folders for that secret, and that's it. With that information alone you cannot access the shared data (but you do know where to reach the devices for additional attacks - which is why it's so important BTSync and its protocol become open source at some point...).

I also tried this with Llama and not even the "kill as root! die! die! die!" action works. I would like to start BTSync automatically when connected to my home Wifi and stop it when i leave my house or Wifi switches off for the night.

Is there any way to show the sync status / progress on Android? Even a "sync finished" message like the desktop client has would be an improvement.

I think if you want to go the "additional encryption tool" route you're better off with Truecrypt.

Well, then simply don't let people you don't trust use your computer. I bet I can delete your user directory faster than you can copy my BTSync secret from the config file. Physical access == you lost. That said, I can't see why the settings.dat has to be binary and the (arguably more sensitive) sync.dat is at least mostly clear text.

This only matters if you have to open ports in your router or configure firewall rules etc. In a LAN environment you can just leave it untouched, especially if it works.

If you can decode the settings.dat you could just drop btsync.exe together with settings.dat in any directory you like. The installation process is not strictly necessary.

You can just move the files from the Appdata folder. BTSync.exe looks first in its own folder for the configuration files, and only if it finds nothing there it looks in the Appdata folder. I don't follow - my computers all have SSDs as system drives and they all are encrypted with Truecrypt.

I had two Hetzner servers running anyway with tons of free disk space, so I just installed BTSync on them.

I don't think that's the root cause, but okay. Like someone else already said in this thread, if you have to centrally synchronise and manage updates on all clients then a decentralized sync solution kinda loses its value.

Okay, I had changed files overwritten with their old versions. Exactly.