duplicity-talk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] Is s3+http encrypted during transmission?


From: Ryan Chan
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Is s3+http encrypted during transmission?
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:13:22 +0800

I agree but not all use cases need hard encryption.

One of the key strength of duplicity is its build in s3 support. (most people find it very useful).


On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Scott Hannahs <address@hidden> wrote:

On Feb 7, 2012, at 09:38, Ryan Chan wrote:

> This is a good point and I hope that need to be promoted.
>
> The reason is now S3 support server side encryption, and if the connection is encrypted by default, we actually can skip our local encryption process. (I know not for all the use cases, but sometimes this level of security is already enough..)

Actually the premise of duplicity is that the storage itself is unsafe.  If you protect the communication channel but not the end storage then there isn't much point in encrypting at all.  Encryption is an all or nothing type system.  You can argue that it is more likely that the communication to the S3 storage is more likely to be intercepted than someone getting access to the S3 system itself but the difference in probability is less than an order of magnitude not many orders of magnitude.

Just use tar and rsync and forget duplicity.

-Scott


_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]