martijnk said:
Anyway this was still a beta test. So I will sent out an announcement soon and tell people to get their data.
Let's see how many people forget this is a beta test.
Haha yes we'll see about that indeed but either way no data is lost, it's just a bit of a pain to make it available if somebody would request something they have uploaded in the past few days and don't have a copy at home.
Nextcloud server side encryption doesn't make sense if the Nextcloud application server and the storage are managed by the same entity and located in the same place.
If the administrator wanted or is forced to access the data, they have both the storage and the encryption key.
Server side encryption is useful when the storage is external.
For example, someone could put their Nextcloud application server in the basement, and the storage in a data center.
In this case, the encryption key resides in the basement.
If the data center is raided, files are inaccessible due to lack of encryption key.
@yoursunny said:
Nextcloud server side encryption doesn't make sense if the Nextcloud application server and the storage are managed by the same entity and located in the same place.
If the administrator wanted or is forced to access the data, they have both the storage and the encryption key.
Server side encryption is useful when the storage is external.
For example, someone could put their Nextcloud application server in the basement, and the storage in a data center.
In this case, the encryption key resides in the basement.
If the data center is raided, files are inaccessible due to lack of encryption key.
You are 100% right but it's more that people like the idea that their data is encrypted. But yeah it's a false sense of security indeed.
The end-to-end is kinda nice but buggy as hell and I have a lot of support tickets from users losing keys. So it's probably best to disable any encryption on NC.
Actually a lot of times, the issue is to have encryption at rest, especially for the "casual" users. This sort of protects people from mistakes and human errors (on the providers or others including law enforcement's part). Paranoid folks will encrypt from their end on top of whatever the provider does (don't trust provider).
Of course none of this is "casual" with GDPR regulations...
My 4 self-hosted NC installations are encrypted server-side. As @nullnothere mentions for encryption at rest - when the servers eventually get decommissioned it gives a little peace-of-mind.
I haven't put anything confidential on Novos, so no big loss and I was unlikely to do so anyway.
There's an option to remove legacy encryption in the config file - I (erroneously?) understood that to mean both old & new encryption are available by default. Leaving it on just slows down the server, or so I thought.
@martijnk said: ..a lot of support tickets from users losing keys..
This is an important email to announce the discontinuation of our NOVOS BRICK service. Unfortunatley, NOVOS BRICK will be discontinued from July 15th, 2021.
Increased hardware -and licensing costs and lack of upgrading users are forcing us to shut down BRICK. We are very sorry that BRICK didn't become what we wanted it to be. A lot of time, effort and money was invested into it but at this point we see no future where it could become a sustainable service.
If you signed up for the beta BRICK-200 (The $1 service) no refund will be provided. With substraction of the Paypal fees not much of that amount would be left and the effort would not worth the maybe 60 or 70 cent return.
If you signed up for (or upgraded to) the premium service, BRICK-500 or BRICK-1000 you will receive a full refund from all the months since you've purchased the service. These will processed starting July 15th, but please allow some time (up to several weeks) for these to be processed.
Please make sure to save your data before July 15th, 2021. As from then on your BRICK will be inaccessible.
Note: This announcement does not affect our VPS services in any way. This announcement is for NOVOS BRICK cloud storage only.
Thanks for your understanding!
Martijn Kools
NOVOS
Get the best deal on your next VPS or Shared/Reseller hosting from RacknerdTracker.com - The original aff garden.
@ehab said: @martijnk how about crediting all those have already paid €1 ?
That was also addressed in the email:
If you signed up for the beta BRICK-200 (The $1 service) no refund will be provided. With substraction of the Paypal fees not much of that amount would be left and the effort would not worth the maybe 60 or 70 cent return.
Those that did sign up for the actual paid service will get a full refund.
For anyone looking for somewhere to move to I can offer space on my Hetzner Storage Share for $4.99USD/TB/Month. You get your own subdomain. PM me if your interested.
Comments
Let's see how many people forget this is a beta test.
Github
"Losing Millions!"
Haha yes we'll see about that indeed but either way no data is lost, it's just a bit of a pain to make it available if somebody would request something they have uploaded in the past few days and don't have a copy at home.
Nextcloud server side encryption doesn't make sense if the Nextcloud application server and the storage are managed by the same entity and located in the same place.
If the administrator wanted or is forced to access the data, they have both the storage and the encryption key.
Server side encryption is useful when the storage is external.
For example, someone could put their Nextcloud application server in the basement, and the storage in a data center.
In this case, the encryption key resides in the basement.
If the data center is raided, files are inaccessible due to lack of encryption key.
You are 100% right but it's more that people like the idea that their data is encrypted. But yeah it's a false sense of security indeed.
The end-to-end is kinda nice but buggy as hell and I have a lot of support tickets from users losing keys. So it's probably best to disable any encryption on NC.
Actually a lot of times, the issue is to have encryption at rest, especially for the "casual" users. This sort of protects people from mistakes and human errors (on the providers or others including law enforcement's part). Paranoid folks will encrypt from their end on top of whatever the provider does (don't trust provider).
Of course none of this is "casual" with GDPR regulations...
My 4 self-hosted NC installations are encrypted server-side. As @nullnothere mentions for encryption at rest - when the servers eventually get decommissioned it gives a little peace-of-mind.
I haven't put anything confidential on Novos, so no big loss and I was unlikely to do so anyway.
There's an option to remove legacy encryption in the config file - I (erroneously?) understood that to mean both old & new encryption are available by default. Leaving it on just slows down the server, or so I thought.
Tough shit - I say. "They were telt"
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
The past 2 days I'm having issues again with backing up my files over WebDAV. Is anyone else experiencing issues as well?
Hello, I also have issues with webdav for a couple of days. Here are some logs from synology hyperbackup:
2021-05-04T03:01:16+02:00 xyz img_backup: [28716]img_backup.cpp:1765 Action: [local backup], Repo Path: [/volume1/@img_bkp_cache/webdav__backups_.qHxEEg], LinkKey: [xyz_0011323756D4_4], Cloud backup: [1], Target ID: [xyz-backup.hbk], task ID: [4]
2021-05-04T03:01:16+02:00 xyz img_backup: [28716]img_backup.cpp:1767 app config Path: [/volume1/@tmp/BKP_APP_EBOZUY]
2021-05-04T03:09:08+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) progress_backup.cpp:50 AddTotal [6940304812]
2021-05-04T03:09:13+02:00 xyz img_worker: [28991]tag_db.cpp:1103 info: last version tag db [/volume1/@img_bkp_cache/ClientCache_cloud_image_webdav.ryblkd/last_version_tagdb] not exists [No such file or directory]
2021-05-04T03:09:16+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3556 [BkpCtrl] All workers flush done, continue:(1)
2021-05-04T03:17:32+02:00 xyz img_worker: webdav-protocol.cpp(652): Curl error with code = '52' and msg = 'Empty reply from server'
2021-05-04T03:17:32+02:00 xyz img_worker: webdav-protocol.cpp(162): Failed to upload file, msg = 'Empty reply from server'
2021-05-04T03:17:32+02:00 xyz img_worker: transfer_webdav.cpp:235 need retry #0: send_file failed: -9900, Empty reply from server
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: webdav-protocol.cpp(168): Server error: status='404', msg = 'File not found'
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) file_transfer.cpp:780 failed to sendfile to [xyz-backup.hbk/Pool/0/0/0.bucket.2] from [/volume1/@img_bkp_cache/webdav__backups_.qHxEEg/xyz-backup.hbk/Pool/0/0/0.bucket], data_hot=[0], error = [2003]
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) file_transfer.cpp:629 failed to sendfile: trg_relative path: [Pool/0/0/0.bucket], err: [2003]
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) cloud_upload_controller.cpp:2141 failed to sync upload file [Pool/0/0/0.bucket], ret[2]
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) cloud_upload_controller.cpp:2269 failed to upload file: [/volume1/@img_bkp_cache/webdav__backups_.qHxEEg/xyz-backup.hbk/Pool/0/0/0.bucket] --> [xyz-backup.hbk/Pool/0/0/0.bucket], blRemoveAfterUpload: [1], dataClass: [2]
2021-05-04T03:17:39+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) cloud_upload_controller.cpp:1934 failed to do the job
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3582 recieve notify error from cloud uploader, err[ST_NOT_FOUND], resume status[NOT_RESUMABLE]
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3693 INFO: abnormal terminate: blWorkerAlive[1], blWaitCloudUploaderEndResponse[0], blWaitBackupEnd:[0]
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28991) client_base.cpp:125 [BkpCtrl] Got TERM signal: (15)
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:774 Something wrong happen during traversing
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:1094 failed to do schedule
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:479 failed to do dispatch [./xyz/xyz.jpg]
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:2067 [BkpCtrl] nftw() failed to traverse: ret = [1]
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:2118 failed to traverse path
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:2575 failed to traverse: errno=(2)
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:2966 failed to backup data
2021-05-04T03:17:40+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3693 INFO: abnormal terminate: blWorkerAlive[1], blWaitCloudUploaderEndResponse[0], blWaitBackupEnd:[0]
2021-05-04T03:17:41+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3445 Error: worker[28991] failed, result[ST_SUSPEND], resume_status: [RESUMABLE]
2021-05-04T03:17:41+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) backup_controller.cpp:3693 INFO: abnormal terminate: blWorkerAlive[0], blWaitCloudUploaderEndResponse[0], blWaitBackupEnd:[0]
2021-05-04T03:17:41+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) local_backup_controller.cpp:593 [BkpCtrl] Failed to backup, version_status: [2]
2021-05-04T03:17:41+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) local_backup_controller.cpp:64 [BkpCtrl] error occurs: blRet[1], err(ST_NOT_FOUND)
2021-05-04T03:17:41+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) cloud_upload_controller.cpp:3417 [CloudUpload] caller occurs err[ST_NOT_FOUND], skip doing [CMD_END], is controller complete version [1]
2021-05-04T03:17:43+02:00 xyz img_worker: (28813) cloud_upload_controller.cpp:1178 cloud uploader is finished and is waiting for die, skip doing anything: blNotify:[0], blResponseEnd:[0], blPostCloud:[1]
2021-05-04T03:17:43+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) [err] logger.cpp:2810 last backup errcode [2200]
2021-05-04T03:17:43+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) service_wrapper.cpp:79 failed to start backup service
2021-05-04T03:17:43+02:00 xyz img_backup: [28716]img_backup.cpp:1877 Failed to start backup task errno:2
2021-05-04T03:17:43+02:00 xyz img_backup: [28716]img_backup.cpp:2446 failed to start task
2021-05-04T03:17:44+02:00 xyz img_backup: (28716) [err] backup_progress.cpp:463 Backup task [novos] completes with result [3] and errorcode [2200]. Time spent: [1059 sec].
I will check this. Btw it might be better to open a ticket next time. I'm not monitoring this site
Copy, will do, but I wasn't sure since this is a free service after all
Important: Announcing NOVOS BRICK discontinuation
So sad.
:
LMAO
Get the best deal on your next VPS or Shared/Reseller hosting from RacknerdTracker.com - The original aff garden.
@martijnk how about crediting all those have already paid €1 ?
That was also addressed in the email:
Those that did sign up for the actual paid service will get a full refund.
It was fun while it lasted for 1 euro!
Sad to see, despite the service having issues for the last month.
Well, testers got 200GB storage for over 6 months so I think asking about a refund for 1eur is a bit out of place.
Not a refund, he would credit the account!
I forgot the service until I receive the discontinue email
Action and Reaction in history
and now you want it -- yeah
Happens to me always
Ympker's Shared/Reseller Hosting Comparison Chart, Ympker's VPN LTD Comparison, Uptime.is, Ympker's GitHub.
I stored some car diagnostics and ISOs (yeah, really!) oniy as a supplementary backup. Then promptly forgot about it!
@martijnk Thanks for the service. I bet it seemed like a good idea, at the time.
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
where am I gonna store the porns now?
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
You mean YABs results?
VPS reviews | | MicroLXC | English is my nth language.
There are some neat storage deals here (no aff)!
Need a free NAT LXC? -> https://microlxc.net/
say no to involucration !
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
Hm, I didn't get that email ...
This space intentionally left blank
For anyone looking for somewhere to move to I can offer space on my Hetzner Storage Share for $4.99USD/TB/Month. You get your own subdomain. PM me if your interested.