[HN Gopher] Send: Open-source fork of Firefox Send
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Send: Open-source fork of Firefox Send
        
       Author : leonry
       Score  : 137 points
       Date   : 2024-10-19 12:17 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (send.vis.ee)
 (TXT) w3m dump (send.vis.ee)
        
       | metadat wrote:
       | This is cool, sharing files larger than 1GB still remains
       | challenging these days.
       | 
       | How easy is it to self-host? I don't see any Docker instructions.
       | 
       | https://gitlab.com/timvisee/send
       | 
       | P.s. Kind of odd that the site links to Github, but the GH repo
       | is only a mirror of the official Gitlab.
        
         | ranger_danger wrote:
         | https://github.com/timvisee/send-docker-compose
        
         | Faaak wrote:
         | swisstransfer.com, up to 50GB
        
       | rompledorph wrote:
       | A minor bug. It's not possible to copy and paste the link from
       | the UI. Using Firefox on iPhone
        
       | mlok wrote:
       | I wonder what limits sends to 2.5GB ?
        
         | ranger_danger wrote:
         | There doesn't appear to be a technical reason, it appears to
         | just be a default configuration setting that was a holdover
         | from Mozilla's imposed limits when Firefox Send was still
         | around.
         | 
         | https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bwqxit/is_ther...
        
         | LWIRVoltage wrote:
         | There are other variants with different file size limits
         | https://github.com/timvisee/send-instances Maybe performance
         | based or something depending on those hosting these instances?
        
       | gunalx wrote:
       | Exactly what i need to be able to not depend on m0zilla
        
       | deskr wrote:
       | As a side note, you can also simulate various network problems in
       | the linux kernel via tc: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/network-
       | failures-simulation
        
       | Arubis wrote:
       | Best of luck to the author! My understanding is that anything
       | that makes large file sharing easy and anonymous rapidly gets
       | flooded with CSAM and ends up shuttering themselves for the good
       | of all. Would love to see a non-invasive yet effective way to
       | prevent such an incursion.
        
         | KomoD wrote:
         | > ends up shuttering themselves for the good of all
         | 
         | mostly because it's difficult to handle all the abuse reports
        
           | aranelsurion wrote:
           | I wonder how that'll play out in this case, since everything
           | uploaded here expires at maximum 3 days. Maybe they can
           | "handle" abuse reports by simply auto-responding in 3 days
           | that it is now removed.
        
         | Vinnl wrote:
         | I've been using this version for a while, presumably it's just
         | gone under the radar enough. So please don't upvote this too
         | much, haha.
        
         | ghostly_s wrote:
         | If it's truly e2e how would they even know what's being shared
         | on it?
        
           | immibis wrote:
           | Because some people would tell them. For example, the FBI
           | would look at a child porn sharing forum and observe a lot of
           | people sharing Send links. Then they would go to the
           | operators of Send servers, and "strongly suggest" that it
           | should shut down.
        
             | KomoD wrote:
             | > and "strongly suggest" that it should shut down.
             | 
             | I don't know about that, is there any documented case of
             | that?
             | 
             | I feel like they'd probably just contact them and ask for
             | removal of the file(s) and to forward any logs?
        
         | chasil wrote:
         | I have been using both Swisstransfer.com and filetransfer.io
         | since Firefox Send shut down.
         | 
         | How have they dealt with this?
        
         | plingbang wrote:
         | For a case when file sharing is intended between individuals or
         | small groups there's an easy solution:
         | 
         |  _Anyone who got the link should be able to delete the file._
         | 
         | This should deter one from using the file sharing tool as free
         | hosting for possibly bad content. One can also build a bot that
         | deletes every file found on public internet.
        
           | giancarlostoro wrote:
           | That then ruins perfectly valid use cases that someone could
           | maliciously delete the file for.
        
             | atoav wrote:
             | But it allows sending. That might be an okay tradeoff,
             | depending on what you're aiming for.
             | 
             | Anonymous file hosting isn't something I'd be keen to
             | offer, given the nhmber of people who would happily just
             | abuse it.
        
           | ipaddr wrote:
           | Or the link expires after a download.
        
         | lovethevoid wrote:
         | For Firefox Send, it was actually malware and spearfishing
         | attacks that were spread.
         | 
         | The combination of limited file availability (reducing the
         | ability to report bad actors), as well as Firefox urls being
         | inherently trusted within orgs (bypassing a lot of basic
         | email/file filtering/scanning), was the reason it became so
         | popular for criminals to use. Like we've seen in the
         | spearfishing attacks in India[1].
         | 
         | [1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2020/06/india-
         | hum...
        
         | neilv wrote:
         | Do we know whether this uploading is motivated by actual pedo
         | reasons, by anti-pedo honeypot reasons, by sociopathic trolling
         | reasons, by sabotage reasons (state, or commercial), or
         | something else?
         | 
         | It's discouraging to think that privacy&security solutions for
         | good people might end up being used primarily by bad people,
         | but I don't know whether that's the situation, nor what the
         | actual numbers are.
        
           | Barrin92 wrote:
           | It is just pedophiles. A user posted here on HN a while ago
           | that they ran a Tor exist node and the overwhelming majority
           | of it was CSAM or other cybercrime. Here in Germany they
           | busted some underground forum and a single individual had
           | 35TB worth of it at home. There's no great conspiracy, the
           | criminal underworld is huge and they use every service that
           | doesn't clamp down on it in some form.
        
       | bachmeier wrote:
       | If you don't want to self-host and you don't want to trust
       | someone else's service (I don't know anything about this server)
       | you get Bitwarden Send with the $10/year premium plan.
        
         | KomoD wrote:
         | > and you don't want to trust someone else's service
         | 
         | You still have to trust Bitwarden aka someone else's service?
        
           | jacooper wrote:
           | Its e2e encrypted, and the client and server code is open
           | source/source available.
        
             | notpushkin wrote:
             | This is also end-to-end encrypted, and the client and
             | server code is open source/source available.
             | 
             | The reason to use Bitwarden could be that you already trust
             | it with something else, and could have taken time and audit
             | that it is indeed legit, or trust others to complain loudly
             | if they find something wrong with the code. Personally, I'd
             | self-host it (or the open source, lighter on resources
             | Vaultwarden), just as an additional safeguard.
        
             | hypeatei wrote:
             | How can you guarantee the build is from the open source
             | code? (i.e. doesn't contain a small patch with hostile
             | behavior)
        
         | MatekCopatek wrote:
         | I didn't know about Bitwarden Send, thanks! Although I did just
         | check it out and it says the limit is 100 MB, which is
         | typically too little.
         | 
         | EDIT: I'm on mobile, apparently it's 500 MB on desktop.
        
       | chme wrote:
       | There is also filebin.net: https://github.com/espebra/filebin2/
       | 
       | And pwndrop: https://github.com/kgretzky/pwndrop
       | 
       | And lots of others.
        
       | benatkin wrote:
       | The title heavily implies that Mozilla's is closed-source. It
       | isn't: https://github.com/mozilla/send
       | 
       | Actually since it says forked it implies that Mozilla maintains a
       | closed-source version. No, it was cancelled.
        
         | promiseofbeans wrote:
         | The Thunderbird team is working on a fork!
         | 
         | "The Thunderbird team was very sad when Firefox Send was shut
         | down. Firefox Send made it possible to send large files easily,
         | maybe easier than any other tool on the Internet. So we're
         | reviving it, but not without some nice improvements.
         | Thunderbird Send will not only allow you to send large files
         | easily, but our version also encrypts them" -
         | https://blog.thunderbird.net/2024/10/thunderbird-annual-repo...
        
           | cpeterso wrote:
           | Firefox Send used E2E encryption. The key was generated on
           | the web client and not shared with the Send server.
           | 
           | https://web.archive.org/web/20200226024845/https://www.wired.
           | ..
        
           | Vinnl wrote:
           | That's weird, I thought the original also decrypted them.
           | (You pass the key in the hash fragment, which your browser
           | doesn't send to the server.)
        
           | benatkin wrote:
           | It could incidentally be closed source, then. I stand
           | corrected.
           | 
           | Sometimes devs & teams of devs wait until their code is
           | finished to put it online. I tend not to - most of my
           | unfinished code open source code is online. I understand the
           | pros/cons of each way though.
        
       | gpm wrote:
       | Slightly off topic: I'm a fan of solutions like
       | https://webwormhole.io/ - which lets you send the file directly
       | from one computer to the other via webrtc instead of uploading to
       | a middleman server... at the expense of not being able to
       | generate a link that you can send to someone else and forget
       | about.
        
         | blacksmith_tb wrote:
         | I am partial to croc[1] which will send directly on your local
         | network, or encrypted through a relay across the 'net.
         | 
         | 1: https://github.com/schollz/croc
        
           | KomoD wrote:
           | For local transfers (mainly between my phone, pc and laptop)
           | I've been using LocalSend, works great.
        
       | CT4u8798 wrote:
       | For local network sharing between my devices I tend to use
       | LocalSend [0] which is absolutely brilliant, pretty much replaced
       | my USB stick for transferring files/folders between devices on
       | the same network.
       | 
       | [0] https://localsend.org/
        
       | burcs wrote:
       | I recently launched www.64.surf that uses the URL to send files,
       | obviously a much smaller file size, but was fun to build
       | regardless.
       | 
       | Basically, base64 encode the file, inject it in the URL and then
       | allows you to share it with other people.
        
         | NetOpWibby wrote:
         | Cloudflare issue when loading the URL
        
         | 0x073 wrote:
         | Then you send the file as base64 prefixed with your URL?
         | 
         | Where is the use, except that's cool to build?
        
         | eptcyka wrote:
         | If the URL contains the file, what is the difference between
         | sending the URL and the actual file contents in practice?
        
       | leonry wrote:
       | A command line version by the same author:
       | https://github.com/timvisee/ffsend
        
       | deknos wrote:
       | Is there a version of this, where i can allow emailadresses to
       | upload things/download things/share things with other
       | emailaddresses?
       | 
       | Like firefox send but some version of authentication via email? I
       | am aware that i would need a way to send emails so the
       | emailaddresses get authentication
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-19 23:00 UTC)