← Back to context Comment by stavros 7 months ago How is Google Drive "way more secure" than a peer-to-peer encrypted solution? 3 comments stavros Reply AStonesThrow 7 months ago Most of us do not have IDS/IPS/DLP tooling in our home networks, nor do we have a 24/7 on-call SOC team monitoring their SIEMs dashboards.Google and Microsoft provision this stuff, even for consumers, with secure authentication and good protections. stavros 7 months ago Syncthing is peer to peer, the files are already on the device. There's no way requiring one more device to be secure (the server) is better than not requiring it. Evidlo 7 months ago It uses STUN/TURN so your first point is irrelevant.I don't understand the second. Are you saying Syncthing is less secure?
AStonesThrow 7 months ago Most of us do not have IDS/IPS/DLP tooling in our home networks, nor do we have a 24/7 on-call SOC team monitoring their SIEMs dashboards.Google and Microsoft provision this stuff, even for consumers, with secure authentication and good protections. stavros 7 months ago Syncthing is peer to peer, the files are already on the device. There's no way requiring one more device to be secure (the server) is better than not requiring it. Evidlo 7 months ago It uses STUN/TURN so your first point is irrelevant.I don't understand the second. Are you saying Syncthing is less secure?
stavros 7 months ago Syncthing is peer to peer, the files are already on the device. There's no way requiring one more device to be secure (the server) is better than not requiring it.
Evidlo 7 months ago It uses STUN/TURN so your first point is irrelevant.I don't understand the second. Are you saying Syncthing is less secure?
Most of us do not have IDS/IPS/DLP tooling in our home networks, nor do we have a 24/7 on-call SOC team monitoring their SIEMs dashboards.
Google and Microsoft provision this stuff, even for consumers, with secure authentication and good protections.
Syncthing is peer to peer, the files are already on the device. There's no way requiring one more device to be secure (the server) is better than not requiring it.
It uses STUN/TURN so your first point is irrelevant.
I don't understand the second. Are you saying Syncthing is less secure?