I run 0807, a file host I host myself.
You drop a file, you get a short link, and you choose when it disappears.
I am posting it here because the whole thing is built around privacy, and because I would rather lay out the real threat model than call it "secure" and let you find the gaps later.
The privacy side:
- No account, no sign up. An upload is not tied to any identity.
- No ads, no third party trackers, no analytics. Nothing is loaded from outside domains, so no fonts or scripts phoning home.
- The server does not log IP addresses or requests. The rate limiter holds an IP in memory for a few minutes to count requests, then forgets it. Nothing is written to disk.
- Reachable over Tor through an onion service.
- Auto delete by time (one hour to thirty days, or never) or after a chosen number of downloads.
- Optional password on files and on text notes.
- Files up to 20 GB.
- Executable types like exe, bat and scripts are blocked so it cannot be used as a malware drop.
The honest part, which this community will and should ask about:
it is not end to end encrypted. The server can read what is stored, on purpose.
I want to be able to remove illegal uploads when they get reported, child sexual abuse material above all. A server that cannot see its own contents cannot act on those reports, and I am not willing to run one that cannot.
So I gave up that form of secrecy in exchange for being able to take that content down.
What that means for you in practice the password is casual access control, not protection from me as the operator or from anyone who breaks into the server.
If you need real confidentiality, encrypt the file on your own machine before uploading and share the key separately.
Treat 0807 as a way to move files around with self destructing links and no account, not as a vault for secrets you cannot afford to expose.
It is open source, and I host the code on my own server instead of GitHub, so there is no third party in that loop either.
You can read every line check the no logging claim yourself suggest a change, or open an issue all without an account:
Questions and criticism welcome. If you think the encryption tradeoff is the wrong call, I will read the argument
Do you see any lack of wisdom in providing and describing a way for people to anonymously share encrypted CSAM on your servers, politely asking them not to do it after explicitly telling them how to do it, and then making your logo a Japanese schoolgirl?
./honeypot.sh
Criticizing just for the sake of criticizing is all you know how to do constantly shouting honeypot even though the src is available.
And I even recommend that people run it locally if they don't trust me (which is understandable).
it’s not for the sake of criticism. as a sw eng myself, it’s about realizing the source may be available but the implementation is sketchy as fuck. this is glowie if there ever was one.
You really need to start waking up, man. The hosting service that would actually be suitable for this type of content is one with end-to-end encryption, which I chose not to implement.
As for the part where I explain to them “how to do it,” it seems pretty logical to me that anyone including me who runs a file-hosting service and responds to reports can see your files. So this “tip” that I “suggested” (in quotes) to encrypt your files is just common sense.
People didn’t wait for me to upload CSAM, and malicious actors didn’t wait for me to figure out how to encrypt their files. I won’t even address the comment about the logo, which is childish and irrelevant to the discussion
My comment is literally only about the logo. Your choice of it is the thing that highlights literally everything else I said.
If it weren't for the logo, there would be no comment. Would I want to know whether people were hosting encrypted CSAM on my servers? Yes. You are free to take risks that you want to take. But the public image you choose is your own doing.