Strongbox: Support for Sync storage provider
mmcguill
👍2
>All comments
I am bumping this up with one caveat: while I use sync and prefer the client-side encryption it uses, I shudder at the growing number of enhancement requests being asked of StrongBox! There is direct relationship between feature growth and size of attack surface. I think as users we have to stop and ask ourselves what matters more, feature X+1 or holding the line and keeping the exiting product as tight as possible? I know it's all a balance, and we each have to make our own choices, but I think we're ultimately defeating our primary purpose in using StrongBox if we keep demanding more and more features. Sorry for the 'rant', just wanted to offer up an opinion.
ronbreault
on 28 Feb 2020
👍4
👎1
Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings
Related issues
antelle
·
5Comments
rob3c
·
3Comments
F3000
·
3Comments
shad0whawk
·
3Comments
Slummi
·
5Comments
Most helpful comment
I am bumping this up with one caveat: while I use sync and prefer the client-side encryption it uses, I shudder at the growing number of enhancement requests being asked of StrongBox! There is direct relationship between feature growth and size of attack surface. I think as users we have to stop and ask ourselves what matters more, feature X+1 or holding the line and keeping the exiting product as tight as possible? I know it's all a balance, and we each have to make our own choices, but I think we're ultimately defeating our primary purpose in using StrongBox if we keep demanding more and more features. Sorry for the 'rant', just wanted to offer up an opinion.