![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Any comparison with the pricing of Mega with other services cannot be done here on Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The mega page doesn't load for me. Im in the US. 24.251.166.207 ( talk) 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The interface loads with https:// but try to upload anything, the file transfers are perpetually stuck on "pending". 173.84.192.93 ( talk) 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The site officially refers to themselves as MEGA, all caps. Can this be mentioned in the article? 92.41.251.239 ( talk) 06:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I came here after reading news reports, and wanted to understand how Mega could be used for file-sharing (not that I intend to use it). If all the data on the site is encrypted, so that even Mega doesn't know what is on it, how can it be shared? I can see that groups of people could share passwords, decryption codes, etc, and access the data in that way, but unless the groups themselves have tight security and controls on who can enter the group, law enforcement agencies and copyright-holders can easily access the data and find out if it is infringing. So, for that matter, could Mega, so their defence that they do not know what is on the site would soon break down. Am I missing something? I tried accessing Mega itself, but the link I tried didn't work. 109.158.44.56 ( talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much, if any of this is useful for the article, but according to the Companies Office Mega Limited
Kiore ( talk) 09:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see some expert analysis of the security. Cloud storage/archiving providers have long claimed via marketing material that they can't access the customer data because it's encrypted client-side before being uploaded, yet they know the weaknesses in their own systems and actually can and do cough up the customer data when compelled. And I think it's reasonable to wonder whether Mega's encryption is mainly intended to provide Mega with some plausible deniability rather than to protect anyone's privacy.
From what I see, the crux of their whole security is your login password, which they do have a hash of. Everything else is stored in the cloud. Most modern hash functions are very fast and susceptible to brute force attacks. If Mega was compelled to provide your encrypted data, password-encrypted AES key, and password hash, I suspect that the security would be absolutely trivial (for most hash functions) to difficult (but not intractable) for some of the slower password storage-oriented hash functions.
173.84.192.93 ( talk) 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Also I'd like to note that statement "we cant open your files as they're end-to-end cyphered" contradict their ability to show previews! So I think that those measures are to secure mega itself. 94.242.22.58 ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As long as you choose a good password that is not true. A brute-force attack on sha2 or sha3 is impossible to our current knowledge. If the JavaScript code is written as explained on their developer site the method is secure, as long as RSA2048, AES-128 and the used hash function are secure. Also MEGA's ssl certificate must be secure, as a man-in-the-middle attack would else be possible in changing the JavaScript code. Let's wait for a real analysis by multiple experts. MrMuffiny ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The grammar in this is appalling. I suggest a rewrite. 3|9|3|0|K ( talk) 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
COI notification. I work for Mega Limited. We would like to make a number of changes, including MEGA's new Logo, change to the software infobox, update Alexa information, correction of the legal name "Mega Limited", not Mega, Ltd., updating software support (citing github and the public SDK) and a host of other small factual improvements. My changes were recently reverted so I'm happy to discuss all of them to make sure Wikipedia's guidelines are correctly followed. My apologies for not coming to the talk page in the first instance.
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'd like to undo the recent reverts correcting a lot of detail. I'm unsure of the correct procedure for an "undo" operation, but if I get it wrong please discuss it here before you undo the changes as I'm watching this page. Thanks everyone!
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
First, I would like to revert the infobox change. The software type is appropriate in this case.
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
undo COI edits. Please discuss on talk page. Meters ( talk) 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: I'd like to change the infobox to the software type. This is because Mega Limited is a software company, specialising in cloud storage and currently audio/video communications. In the process I'd like to use the correct name of Mega Limited instead of Mega, Ltd. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently the description of the end-to-end encryption is incorrect in that the sentence refers to JavaScript encryption. Generally this should be described as client-side or end-user encryption and decryption in whatever platforms the users prefers. The user is performing the encryption and decryption in JavaScript, C++, Java or whatever bindings are relevant to the various platforms. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC).
May I ask ask how various disambiguations decisions are made. Currently when I search for "mega" I see a disambiguation for "megaupload". How was this decision made, was "megaupload" sometimes referred to as "mega"? AklMeditor1 ( talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence: Mega, Ltd. is a ... Should this be: Mega Limited (stylized as MEGA) operates a cloud storage... where the difference is the company name and what they operate. Or should it simply be Mega (stylized as MEGA) is a cloud storage... AklMeditor1 ( talk)
A comparison between Mega and Drop appears here: https://www.incibe.es/extfrontinteco/img/File/intecocert/EstudiosInformes/incibe_security_storage_dropbox_mega.pdf The last page is particularly interesting to Mega users. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 05:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Another change got reverted, I'm slowly getting the hang of this. I thought only edits that had the potential to be COI or unbiased should be reverted, or should I put all changes, no matter how minor here first? Mega is moving from mega.co.nz to mega.nz and that's currently where MEGAchat is located (in beta form). Perhaps it is better to add a link to mega.nz in the MEGAchat section? kind regards. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Mega has released a press release ( https://mega.nz/Mega_Limited_Press_Release_re_Olswang_Report_15May2015.pdf) announcing the release of an independent report by anti-piracy law firm Olswang. ( https://mega.nz/Mega_Limited_Olswang_Report_15May2015.pdf)
In the press release Mega has updated the number of registered users to 18 million (up from 15 million in the Wikipedia entry) AklMeditor1 ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mega (service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
recursive acronym — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.201.243 ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
At best, even taking into account countries whose sovereignty is disputed, there are fewer than 220 countries on Earth, as per this list. How can MEGA claim to have members in over 245 countries if this is the case? Shouldn't this be removed?
Blaziken ( T- C) 08:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like some of the recent things have not been updated yet in the article. For one, the add-on (called "plugin" in the article) now exists for both Firefox and Chrome. Second, you MUST use it if you want to download files to your local storage which are larger than 1 GB. Trying without, even on your free account, will result in a message in Transfers pane "File too big to be reliably downloaded" and the download will be terminated immediately. While I think that this is a typical PR thing and it would work perfectly without the add-on, this is the current as-is situation. Can't help it. -leecher- 2.242.39.171 ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Any comparison with the pricing of Mega with other services cannot be done here on Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The mega page doesn't load for me. Im in the US. 24.251.166.207 ( talk) 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The interface loads with https:// but try to upload anything, the file transfers are perpetually stuck on "pending". 173.84.192.93 ( talk) 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The site officially refers to themselves as MEGA, all caps. Can this be mentioned in the article? 92.41.251.239 ( talk) 06:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I came here after reading news reports, and wanted to understand how Mega could be used for file-sharing (not that I intend to use it). If all the data on the site is encrypted, so that even Mega doesn't know what is on it, how can it be shared? I can see that groups of people could share passwords, decryption codes, etc, and access the data in that way, but unless the groups themselves have tight security and controls on who can enter the group, law enforcement agencies and copyright-holders can easily access the data and find out if it is infringing. So, for that matter, could Mega, so their defence that they do not know what is on the site would soon break down. Am I missing something? I tried accessing Mega itself, but the link I tried didn't work. 109.158.44.56 ( talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much, if any of this is useful for the article, but according to the Companies Office Mega Limited
Kiore ( talk) 09:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see some expert analysis of the security. Cloud storage/archiving providers have long claimed via marketing material that they can't access the customer data because it's encrypted client-side before being uploaded, yet they know the weaknesses in their own systems and actually can and do cough up the customer data when compelled. And I think it's reasonable to wonder whether Mega's encryption is mainly intended to provide Mega with some plausible deniability rather than to protect anyone's privacy.
From what I see, the crux of their whole security is your login password, which they do have a hash of. Everything else is stored in the cloud. Most modern hash functions are very fast and susceptible to brute force attacks. If Mega was compelled to provide your encrypted data, password-encrypted AES key, and password hash, I suspect that the security would be absolutely trivial (for most hash functions) to difficult (but not intractable) for some of the slower password storage-oriented hash functions.
173.84.192.93 ( talk) 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Also I'd like to note that statement "we cant open your files as they're end-to-end cyphered" contradict their ability to show previews! So I think that those measures are to secure mega itself. 94.242.22.58 ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As long as you choose a good password that is not true. A brute-force attack on sha2 or sha3 is impossible to our current knowledge. If the JavaScript code is written as explained on their developer site the method is secure, as long as RSA2048, AES-128 and the used hash function are secure. Also MEGA's ssl certificate must be secure, as a man-in-the-middle attack would else be possible in changing the JavaScript code. Let's wait for a real analysis by multiple experts. MrMuffiny ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The grammar in this is appalling. I suggest a rewrite. 3|9|3|0|K ( talk) 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
COI notification. I work for Mega Limited. We would like to make a number of changes, including MEGA's new Logo, change to the software infobox, update Alexa information, correction of the legal name "Mega Limited", not Mega, Ltd., updating software support (citing github and the public SDK) and a host of other small factual improvements. My changes were recently reverted so I'm happy to discuss all of them to make sure Wikipedia's guidelines are correctly followed. My apologies for not coming to the talk page in the first instance.
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'd like to undo the recent reverts correcting a lot of detail. I'm unsure of the correct procedure for an "undo" operation, but if I get it wrong please discuss it here before you undo the changes as I'm watching this page. Thanks everyone!
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
First, I would like to revert the infobox change. The software type is appropriate in this case.
AklMeditor1 ( talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
undo COI edits. Please discuss on talk page. Meters ( talk) 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: I'd like to change the infobox to the software type. This is because Mega Limited is a software company, specialising in cloud storage and currently audio/video communications. In the process I'd like to use the correct name of Mega Limited instead of Mega, Ltd. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently the description of the end-to-end encryption is incorrect in that the sentence refers to JavaScript encryption. Generally this should be described as client-side or end-user encryption and decryption in whatever platforms the users prefers. The user is performing the encryption and decryption in JavaScript, C++, Java or whatever bindings are relevant to the various platforms. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC).
May I ask ask how various disambiguations decisions are made. Currently when I search for "mega" I see a disambiguation for "megaupload". How was this decision made, was "megaupload" sometimes referred to as "mega"? AklMeditor1 ( talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence: Mega, Ltd. is a ... Should this be: Mega Limited (stylized as MEGA) operates a cloud storage... where the difference is the company name and what they operate. Or should it simply be Mega (stylized as MEGA) is a cloud storage... AklMeditor1 ( talk)
A comparison between Mega and Drop appears here: https://www.incibe.es/extfrontinteco/img/File/intecocert/EstudiosInformes/incibe_security_storage_dropbox_mega.pdf The last page is particularly interesting to Mega users. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 05:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Another change got reverted, I'm slowly getting the hang of this. I thought only edits that had the potential to be COI or unbiased should be reverted, or should I put all changes, no matter how minor here first? Mega is moving from mega.co.nz to mega.nz and that's currently where MEGAchat is located (in beta form). Perhaps it is better to add a link to mega.nz in the MEGAchat section? kind regards. AklMeditor1 ( talk) 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Mega has released a press release ( https://mega.nz/Mega_Limited_Press_Release_re_Olswang_Report_15May2015.pdf) announcing the release of an independent report by anti-piracy law firm Olswang. ( https://mega.nz/Mega_Limited_Olswang_Report_15May2015.pdf)
In the press release Mega has updated the number of registered users to 18 million (up from 15 million in the Wikipedia entry) AklMeditor1 ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mega (service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
recursive acronym — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.201.243 ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
At best, even taking into account countries whose sovereignty is disputed, there are fewer than 220 countries on Earth, as per this list. How can MEGA claim to have members in over 245 countries if this is the case? Shouldn't this be removed?
Blaziken ( T- C) 08:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like some of the recent things have not been updated yet in the article. For one, the add-on (called "plugin" in the article) now exists for both Firefox and Chrome. Second, you MUST use it if you want to download files to your local storage which are larger than 1 GB. Trying without, even on your free account, will result in a message in Transfers pane "File too big to be reliably downloaded" and the download will be terminated immediately. While I think that this is a typical PR thing and it would work perfectly without the add-on, this is the current as-is situation. Can't help it. -leecher- 2.242.39.171 ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)