On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:49:04 AM UTC-4, [799] wrote: > Hello rysiek, > > > > > For what it's worth, we're using (not with Qubes, just generally) a system > > of > > > LUKS volumes in large (hundreds of GiB) files on SSHFS-mounted volumes (for > > > backups), and we're quite happy with that set-up. > > > > thanks for the info, good to know that sshfs seems to work on a daily basis. > > I have migrated from NFS to SSHFS already. > > I'm using certificates for additional security and have restricted firewall > rules so that only transfer between both VMs TC/port 22 is allowed. > > Seems like a solution that is ok, even when I'll not out the > "save-the-world-formula" there (as encfs seems to be the weakest link in my > setup). > > > > Regarding my specific use case I would like to synchronize the data to keep a > copy at another location. > > Using LUKS images can cause a problem depending on the transfer mechanism, as > I need to use a mechanism which will only transfer the qctual changed blocks > not the whole image. > > As such I'd like to use an encryption which works with file based encryption > - knowing that this has reduced security as metadata etc. can be used to > attack the encryption. > > > > See my other mail, how my solution with SSHFS looks like. > > > > [799]
I think we might be better to look at say encrypted S3 buckets, as S3 clients can run from any AppVM. long and short, i have storage resources, so im inclined to test a remote backup scenerio via S3 buckets -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/4502d1dd-7053-436d-83d8-1661654d33de%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
