>OnionShare is an open source tool for securely and anonymously sending and receiving files using Tor onion services. It works by starting a web server directly on your computer and making it accessible as an unguessable Tor web address that others can load in Tor Browser to download files from you, or upload files to you. It doesn't require setting up a separate server, using a third party file-sharing service, or even logging into an account.
As far as I can tell, this isn't doing anything new. It's just simplifying the process of creating a hidden web server, encrypting a file, and the receiving end decrypting it.
Do you think it is secure? Would you use this? What kind of files would you send or use to securely receive?
>>2717 I was going to post something about this when I read the announcement, but I forgot. I'm glad someone else did.
>As far as I can tell, this isn't doing anything new. It's just simplifying the process of creating a hidden web server, encrypting a file, and the receiving end decrypting it.
Correct, and that's a good thing. Solutions for all kinds of communications threats have been around for a long time; one of the reasons they're so seldom used is that they're too hard to use for normalfags. So things like OnionShare are good in that they bring established technologies within the reach of dumdums.
>Do you think it is secure?
This question is meaningless. "Secure" in what way? Against whom? Against which sorts of attacks? For which use cases? Do you mean the general method, or the specific code? (If the latter, it just came out, so I doubt it has been audited by a 3rd party.)
>Would you use this?
Yes. I plan to.
>What kind of files would you send or use to securely receive?
wew lad. Rather a personal question, yeah? The short answer would be "any files I want to transmit to someone confidentially and/or with some level of anonymity, especially if that someone is a non-technical sort." As an example, a few years ago, I needed to transmit a copy of a sensitive document to a relative. Either a physical or electronic copy was fine, but I had to do it right away, so I couldn't send it through the post. I didn't want to email it to him, because he only used gmail, and I didn't want it sitting unencrypted on gmail's servers and in his inbox in perpetuity. In the end, I did have to email it to him, but since he had a Mac, which had openssl installed by default, I was able to encrypt the file with openssl, send it to him, then walk him through the process over the phone of opening Terminal and decrypting the file. Not an ideal solution, but sufficient to protect the file against a curious google engineer or some cracker who managed to get a hold of my relative's gmail account. Now, I wouldn't bother with that shitty solution, I'd just use OnionShare.
>>2719 >This question is meaningless. "Secure" in what way? Against whom? Against which sorts of attacks? For which use cases? Do you mean the general method, or the specific code? (If the latter, it just came out, so I doubt it has been audited by a 3rd party.)
I meant really has there been any news stories breaking of criminals getting caught using it. It serves as a test on how an anounomous user can get caught (even if it is not the application or service''s fault). It is fairly new so I do not reckon there is much, and could not find any news stories either.
>wew lad. Rather a personal question, yeah?
Was mainly talking about in the general sense. I would probably use it to transfer backups of encrypted password databases or phone backups when I travel, since bring a USB or phone with personal data through TSA is always some sort of risk (being stolen, snooped, etc). Always good practice to backup and factory wipe your phone and electronics when traveling through shit tier customs offices who believe water bottles are a potential security threat.
>2717
>>Do you think it is secure?
as secure as I could hope for. the alternatives are mostly awful.
>What kind of files would you send or use to securely receive?
anything and everything that is too large or inappropriate for sending by email.
I wonder if TOR would ever become fast enough for a site to host pirated games and movies to download. Technically you could torrent them but that exposes your ip unless using a VPN, but even then you are trusting that they do not keep logs, which they might.
>>2744 >muh speeeeeed
Tor is plenty fast enough. It's just that it has a high latency. I can get 500kb/s depending on the circuit, which is plenty. You can leave stuff downloading overnight.
>>2745 Circuits don't live long enough to let through anything over 3GB. Even wget didn't help in my case but maybe I'm doing something wrong.
>>2754 No but you are pretty retarded.
>>2744 >trusting that they do not keep logs
Not necessarily. Some, ie expressvpn and perfect privacy, were field-tested.
But if you are high-profile unwanted person, I highly doubt they wouldn't tap the traffic. You can still connect to vpn through tor and buy the service with bitcoins tho.
>>2746 There are some, mainly books http://zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion/wiki/Main_Page#Books Don't need anything else as long as there is skytorrents.lol, where you can find almost everything you would ever want digitally.
>>2745 this
You can do webchat with auto refresh instead of javascript. But a chat function would still be outside the scope of onionshare.
A tor exclusive volafile clone might be neat, though.
>>2789 >durf gurf 5 months = no culture
If you dont remember spammer-kun, the first shutdown, the nanochan (((gold pass system))), the 3chan ERPfags on /a/ and the hapase meme at the very least, you're a fucking worthless newfag.
I remember the first post ever made in nanochan, since I'm the one who posted it. That post was since lost in one of the waves of spam.
I am the oldest of oldfags, second to only hapase herself. Meanwhile, you sound like you literally arrived yesterday. Lurk moar, as I said.
>>2797 >who has done nothing but lower the quality of this board
this. this anon's most notable contributions to date have been:
>lurk moar
>muh ancient culture
same old shit.
>>2797 gb2 reddit nao plz & lurk moar
>>2801 Your posting style of putting a space ' ' instead of a newline '\n' after the reply makes you stand out faggot. If you value your anonymity I'd suggest you stop doing that, and if you don't value your anonymity there's always pigchan.
>>2809 >Your posting style [..] makes you stand out faggot
this isn't the first time you've pointed out another poster's style while doing nothing about your own. go home already.
>>2876 It's computationally infeasible to generate a specific address, but easy to generate a random one. So you won't get the same address twice if you've lost the private key file.
https://blog.torproject.org/new-release-onionshare-2
>OnionShare is an open source tool for securely and anonymously sending and receiving files using Tor onion services. It works by starting a web server directly on your computer and making it accessible as an unguessable Tor web address that others can load in Tor Browser to download files from you, or upload files to you. It doesn't require setting up a separate server, using a third party file-sharing service, or even logging into an account.
As far as I can tell, this isn't doing anything new. It's just simplifying the process of creating a hidden web server, encrypting a file, and the receiving end decrypting it.
Do you think it is secure? Would you use this? What kind of files would you send or use to securely receive?