From ecebdec2c6ae71bd0f5041a77dc9ae7b0bca21e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:42:19 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] update --- .../comment_4_d19a6c42a6c4b0be270e1a1fe167631d._comment | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/todo/encrypt_just_the_annex_on_git+annex_hosting_site/comment_4_d19a6c42a6c4b0be270e1a1fe167631d._comment b/doc/todo/encrypt_just_the_annex_on_git+annex_hosting_site/comment_4_d19a6c42a6c4b0be270e1a1fe167631d._comment index 4cc63688a7..9de9ff171e 100644 --- a/doc/todo/encrypt_just_the_annex_on_git+annex_hosting_site/comment_4_d19a6c42a6c4b0be270e1a1fe167631d._comment +++ b/doc/todo/encrypt_just_the_annex_on_git+annex_hosting_site/comment_4_d19a6c42a6c4b0be270e1a1fe167631d._comment @@ -41,4 +41,12 @@ A few gotchas I can see: are set up all storing to the same underlying remote. I think this is minor, because there would be 2 actual copies, just copies that happen to be on the same drive. +* `encryption=shared` will not add any security if the underlying remote + is a git repository, because pushing the git-annex branch there will make + the encryption key available to anyone who can access the git repository. + Instead will need to use `encryption=pubkey`. + (Since this is a bit non-obvious, it should probably reject attempts + to do that.) + +I have some early work (documentation) in the `maskremote` branch. """]]