← Back to context Comment by stavros 1 year ago How is Google Drive "way more secure" than a peer-to-peer encrypted solution? 3 comments stavros Reply AStonesThrow 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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?