Hi, I don’t think this is possible so this is more of a feature request, unless there’s a way to do this using 3rd party apps…I’d like to run a syncthing device on my VPS cloud server (digital ocean in my case) but I’d like to have the entire folder encrypted since it will not be in my physical control. I know traffic between devices is encrypted via TLS but the files themselves will be sitting there unencrypted. Any way to have seamless encryption of files on a device? I’m not too concerned about my PC or phone, since I control physical access to them.
"blind" devices for high availability
No read access shares / keeping files encrypted
Back(up)Thing - an alternative to Crashplan (and BuddyBackup)
Proposed new encrypted node type
You could technically encrypt the file system.
Not sure if that would solve it for you, or you’d rather want to use the VPS as a relay and backup server only, so you won’t be accessing the files directly on that VPS. I think this would be a great feature if Syncthing would support that. You could even offer hosted backup and relay servers, while the users could be sure, the server and anybody who has access to it, wouldn’t be able to see the actual content of their files.
There is a long long Github issue for that:
But I guess some more discussion will not hurt.
@calmh requested that we do this in the forum:
Yeah, because here I don’t get notifications that need to be cleared every time someone says “yeah that’d be cool” or “I have this broken workaround here that doesn’t do the same thing that you can try…”
There’s a long standing issue for that too, FWIW
But, on topic now, I don’t want to read the complete issue thread.
What is the main reason why encrypted peers is not possible with Syncthing?
Because nobody implemented it yet.
I’ve just taken a look at how device linking and discovery works. To me it seems hard to implement this using the current system.
In a cluster of three devices of which one is a non-trusted one, the other two have to come to an agreement about which key to encrypt all outgoing data to the third device with.
I’d think about a solution like this: (I think its actually the opposite of how introducers work.)
When you init the first device in the cluster, it is the only master device. It creates a private key to use for encrypting data for untrusted clients (you want to use the same key for all untrusted devices because otherwise more information than necessary is given away when there are a lot of untrusted devices)
Whenever you add a new device to a master device, you check a box to indicate if it is trusted or not. If it is trusted, you hand it the key so that it becomes a master device as well.
Introducers of course indicate to devices that the new device is untrusted.
A similar thing can be done to solve #62 (which I just stumbled upon), where source devices sign their changes with the master key required to make changes.
(I literally just minutes ago first looked at how syncthing works so this might be complete nonsense.)
Just thinking further here, this whole idea could actually be taken further to changing the device-based syncing towards cluster-based syncing/discovery. Imagine that a syncthing cluster would be built around a private key (which could be backed up offline). The cluster would be identified by (a hash of) its public key.
- All trusted devices hold this key.
- Whenever you want to setup a new device, you enter the identifier and it will announce itself, asking for permission to the cluster.
- All trusted devices get a notification, asking what to do with the device. You can then decide what tp do with it
- Trust it and hand it the key.
- Make it a read-only device, handing it a signed message saying that it is a read-only device.
- Make it an encrypted device and hand it a signed message saying that it is an encrypted device.
- The new device then messages all other devices, proving her “role” in the cluster that has been given to her by another trusted device (this prove is either a self-made signed message with the key she received or the signed message she received)
- Now, when a device is advanced by a new device, the new device can authenticate itself using a signed message.
- The cool thing is, when all the trusted devices die are get stolen, you still have the backup of the key and can use it to find the untrusted devices that can hand you all the files in encrypted form. Of course validity checks have to be made, but that is certainly possible.
I’m probably driving it too far for the simple use cases syncthing is intended for, but such a system would allow for a lot new interesting use cases. It actually goes in the direction of a more distributed cloud solution, like Storj, f.e. (Storj is a really cool project, you should definitely take a look!)
So to summarize, you’ve envisioned something totally unlike Syncthing in operation, protocol and security model. That’s fine, but doesn’t actually move anywhere towards adding this functionality to Syncthing.
There are ways to retrofit the needed functionality on the current protocol (basically encrypting hashes and file names, adding an encrypted-hash field, and encrypting the actual file blocks of course), but it’s tricky and ideally something a crypto expert should look at as it’s not completely obvious that it’s correct. It would be worthwhile for someone to actually spend the time trying to implement that though, as it is something we could in fact include and ship. Me and Audrius talked about it and there’s a half done protocol proposal somewhere. I should dig that out and clean it up so people can look at it.
But further visions of a different future based on something fundamentally not-Syncthing aren’t useful, in the context of things we want Syncthing to do.
This is my current best guess/recollection:
Added another $50 to the bounty. If I weren’t so swamped with work this quarter I’d take a crack at implementing this myself. Perhaps just sticking a .stfolderkey.pem in the root of a shared folder on the trusted peers, and having each block stored on the untrusted ones (each with its own file key, encrypted to the folder key, in a header) might work with the least amount of implementation. I’m not sure because I haven’t had a chance to dig into the existing st design yet.
<3 you all. thank you.
Isn’t this missing the point? What you want is what services like tresorit and spideroak deliver, i.e. encryption before files leave the client, and decryption when it enters the client. TLS is just an extra layer, but as soon as it leaves the tunnel, it’s all vulnerable again when stored on a remote server or cheap NAS device. You would want a local switch serverside to receive data encrypted or not, and then the clients (the other ends) need to encrypt the data before transmission. Sounds more complex than it is. The code is already out there, it’s more a question of CPU usage and weight.
@liefde Please read the github issue, it’s not about https and your proposal unfortunately doesn’t cut it.
Homomorphic encryption and special databases could help ST accomplish this tough.
Here is an article + discussion about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9839438
You haven’t even read what I wrote. And it wasn’t a “proposal” either, it’s the only way to make this work securely. As it stands, syncthing only secures the transfer, while in transit, the transport. You need client side storage decryption, and server side storage encryption.
Look, guys. There’s an embryo to a protocol change proposal above. If you have energy to spend, why not look it over and suggest improvements or something. Obviously this is about encrypting data before it leaves the secure device; reiterating that doesn’t move anything forward. The code isn’t “out there” in this case - it’s a matter of implementing it in the context of the protocol we already speak, or as changes to that protocol.
In the news:
The “other” (closed source) peer-to-peer syncing application released encryption for untrusted devices on January 21st.
Previously, the other product required a manual hack to derive Read-Write or Read-Only encryption keys. It’s now a mainstream feature on both their paid and free versions.
Since it’s closed source it’s impossible to audit. In that case it’s really not very different from using your friend’s server as an unencrypted node and just trusting them not to read your files, or from any of the “other” closed-source file sync programs.
I guess if they claim to use a standardized crypto-system you could capture the packets as they left your machine and compare them against the results of an open implementation of that crypto-system. But you could never be sure there wasn’t some un-triggered bug or backdoor that would be activated later.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I am here and not there.
I have faith that when the encryption issue is resolved in Syncthing, it will be based on an open and peer-reviewed system. So in that sense, it’s better to wait.
Meanwhile, those who have untrusted devices in their cluster (in my case, a 3rd party VPS) can always use TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt containers for any private data. Bit of a pain in the a$$ … but the VPS administrators theoretically can’t see what is being stored on their node.
I want to upvote the feature request (as https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/109 )! I see the optional encryption as big bonus to SyncThing. Personally I am using Crashplan Free right now to sync - as I am backing up to peple I do not want to be able to read all my files. It SyncThing would enable encryption on a distant system … GREAT!
I’m also interested in having the encryption feature.
Regarding the Crypto Proposal https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/wiki/Crypto-Proposal, is this the direction that Syncthing is planning to take, or is it still an open question?
I’m asking because I saw a lot of interesting discussion here https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/109 regarding convergent encryption. But that was not mentioned in the Crypto Proposal.