Rclone has been banned from Amazon Drive

Help and Support
64

While that is a great thought that completely and utterly goes against open source. :wink:

65

Why are you saying that ?
Source would stay available, only the client ID would be kept private.
Embedding secrets / passwords in binaries only is a quite easy / common approach (even if not really secure - could probably still be extracted from the binaries).

It’s the same about identifiers (login, passwords, …) used during tests : you won’t commit them in a git repository and keep them separaterd.

66

If there is a binary blob you are injecting in open source, it is no longer open source. You have no idea what is in that blob since it is closed and now you are downloading that blob into your internal Network.

Both approaches are bad but including compiled blobs in the open source is worse as I can’t opt out of that. I can, however, opt out of using ACD because of the intermediate auth proxy.

67

I really don’t understand your point.

Right now, most users are using rclone by grabbing the pre-compiled and published binaries : already today, anything can be injected (trojan, and so on).
You can of course at the moment compile the rclone binary by yourself.

With the above proposition, it’s exactly the same. You take the pre-compiled binary, which will work and won’t be banned as the secret is injected only at compile time.
You can still review the code (like today).
You can still compile the binary by yourself if you want, but, of course, due to the new Amazon limitation, you’ll have to provide your own client ID / secret (once registration is opened again on Amazon side).

So it’s truly still open source.

(and this approach is way better than having an intermediate proxy hosted elsewhere by someone else : this proxy may be hacked and may store every user logins/passwords)

68

Lol only being able to use a pre compiled binary isn’t open source.

69

Yea I agree, if anything Amazon should automatically give API access to your own drive so everyone need to use their own secret and implementing per account limits (like google does).

p.s. While auth server is not really good implementation its still better to have option to use ACD then being without it.

70

I don’t care what needs to be done as long as I can use rclone on amazon again. If you are concerned about your data don’t upload private things or encrypt it beforehand. Thank you @ncw !

71

While I agree with that statement it doesn’t make it better. I’ll just opt out till something changes. It isn’t a choice to implement a proxy. It’s either the proxy or “no acd” for now.

72

Thank you for all the hard work and continued updates. Hopefully they at least allow a temporary “allowed” window for us to get our stuff in working order, or, re-open the API key registration.

73

@ncw I would like to see the keys added to the compiled files as an alternative to an authserver. Should not be a problem for Amazon since then its not public.

74

Wouldn’t it just be better to have the auth server closed source and run locally? then at least we aren’t passing data to ncw and everything reminds in house.

75

I know from experience that it’s not bandwidth. Their network is very robust and the architecture is such that it doesn’t typically have that issue. This feels like typical service provider issues: 10% of the customers using 80% of the resources - cheap, fast, reliable (where fast==unlimited). Pick two.
As an aside, and while I hope that they allow rclone again, I use them strictly for offsite backup. Arq appears to still work, so I’ll continue paying for ACD for that use, but will likely move to something else for my encrypted bulk backups. I need about 20T, anyone have any suggestions or a recommendation for that? hubic looks promising but tops out at 10T.

1 Like
76

go to hetzner, storage box + auction

storage box 10TB is for 50 EUR
and your dedicated server could be one from the auction, for example
Intel Core i7-2600
HDD 4x HDD 4,0 TB SATA Enterprise
RAM 4x RAM 4096 MB DDR3
16TB disc
for 70 EUR

SUM:
120 EUR
for 26TB

:smiley:

77

Hubic… I used them a while ago, and tbh it was rubbish, they limited speeds down to 10Mbps, support was pretty much non existent and forum was constantly full of spam…

78

@alneven 120€ a month for 26TB?

79

yes, 120 eur / month

80

Or you can rent Dedicated Root Server SX61 with 4 x 6 TB (24TB) for 82€ / month

81

even better…
didn’t evaluated the question that deep

82

Sure, but that's normally configured in a RAID 1 config @ 12TB.

83

you can use hetzners install image and disable raid 1.