Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The deal with mine, is the encryption is left to the client. The server just stores a binary "thing." That "thing" can be an encrypted envelope, managed by the client[s]. Since it's a closed-loop system, then a key could be shared programmatically, outside the purview of the server.


Yeah, in Etebase the server also just sees "things", though it tries to make it easy on the client to only get what's changed and etc.


Just curious, how does that differ from a system like Firefox sync which is also using client side encryption?


I don't think Firefox sync makes it very easy for devs to build other encrypted applications. Even if they did however, there are a lot of challenges with encrypted applications that they just don't take care of. Not to mention that they are very we centric and don't have developer APIs in many languages.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: