Jump to content

Talk:Mega (service)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pricing

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)

Not Loading

The mega page doesn't load for me. Im in the US. 24.251.166.207 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The HTTP Secure link works: https://mega.co.nz/ --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:41, 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)

give it some time and it works. it did for me if it gets stuck write click and cancel then re upload 27.252.222.48 (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As of last night (the 22nd) the servers seems to have recovered from peak demand during launch and started accepting file transfers at reasonable speeds (1.5+ MB/s). --212.25.57.35 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

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)

Sharing?

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 have the same question. Anyone? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Essentially, you send the link to the file/folder in question and you also send a key for it. You can do it as a single link as far as I have seen or you can split the file link from the key required to download it/import it to your own account,so you can send them separately.--212.25.57.35 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK regarding illegal file sharing the whole encryption stuff is not to protect the user from the copyright holders but to protect MEGA from legal matters. The site explicitly states that it stores user access data. So if a link is made public together with a password it could be possible to track the original uploader and those who downloaded it. Regarding Mega itself, as the data is encrypted client side they can say that they had no idea that there was illegal data on their server. As a matter of fact that is why I also believe that MEGA really wants the encryption to be as bulletproof as possible. There is a way for an uploader to protect himself, if he knows how long mega stores the connection info. He uploads an illegal file and waits until his data is deleted and then publishes the link with password. But the users who download this can still be caught. MrMuffiny (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ownership

I'm not sure how much, if any of this is useful for the article, but according to the Companies Office Mega Limited

  • Was incorporated on 29 Nov 2012 [1]
  • Has three directors: Kim DOTCOM, Antonio Frank LENTINO and Mathias ORTMANN. [2]
  • Has two shareholders: MD CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED 87,000 shares and INSTRA GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED 10,000 shares.[3]
  • MD CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED has one shareholder Mona Verga DOTCOM [4] who is also the only director [5]

Kiore (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes so the last part means the company is held in his wife's name, for reasons unknown, but perhaps likely as a possible way either around current shareholder restrictions placed on him due to court procedings, or tax reasons, or even done so he knows he can't be re-prosecuted for Mega in a similar way he was for Megaupload because he is officially not a main shareholder, or all three. The latter is unlikely, as should the sh!t hit the fan, he'd be puting his wife in a somewhat untenable position (though saying that, Chris Huhne currently comes to mind for some reason, lol).
Although this is quite a regular practice done by fraudsters worldwide, as they open>ripoff>liquidate company after company. But given he's somewhat a massive public figure, he's highly likely to be forced to do it for legitimate business reasons. Jimthing (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Security Analysis

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)

Despite the fact, that MEGA's developer documentation (https://mega.co.nz/#developers) uses the word "hash", there is actually no hash function used, but a variation of the user's email-address gets AES encrypted multiple times in a row with the user-password and then acts as the reference-value for the login-process, therefore avoiding the problems the usage of an actual hash-function could cause for password strength compared to AES.
see also: http://julien-marchand.fr/blog/using-the-mega-api-with-php-examples/
5.149.251.36 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2013 (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)

Ars has an analysis on the security of MEGA - Megabad: A quick look at the state of Mega’s encryption
-TinGrin 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

The grammar in this is appalling. I suggest a rewrite. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A rewrite will probably happen automatically over the course of the next few days, now that the website has been launched. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Infobox is cluttered (see source), someone needs to remove useless/redundant entries according to Wikipedia standards. Hei Liebrecht 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MEGA company updates

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)

Please propose detailed, specific changes so that uninvolved editors may comment on them. It's better if COI editors do not make the edits to the article themselves. Meters (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, do you suggest I detail the edits I've already done? Is it appropriate to suggest a non-COI editor looks at the reverted changes to confirm they're not COI biased? thank you for your help. AklMeditor1 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For example. Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mega_(service)&diff=643125852&oldid=641026266 corrected the company name, removed duplicated history as it is described in the first sentence in the history. The opening description should be a high level overview so we inserted the primary goal of MEGA, end-to-end privacy. I then expanded on the types of software bindings in the public SDK. AklMeditor1 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
And edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mega_(service)&diff=643137697&oldid=643130823 changed the infobox dot-com company to the software infobox, as used by Dropbox among other similar companies. It also was updated to use the company logo. AklMeditor1 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
No, don't expect editors to go back in the history and try to figure out which edits are problematic. Some of your edits do appear to me to have possibly significant COI issues. That's why I undid your edits with the edit summary: undo COI edits. Please discuss on talk page. Meters (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You neglected to mention that this edit also whitewashed all mention of the service's founder and the legal problems with his previous version. That's the sort of omission that could make one wonder if a COI editor is operating in good faith. Meters (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the material is properly covered, but removing it and "forgetting" to mention that in your summary of what the edit was isn't helping your case. That's one of the reasons we ask for detailed edit proposals from COI editors. Meters (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Almost the exact same sentence appears in the very first line of the history. Indeed, this is why a robust COI discussion needs to take place, and I am appreciative of your guidance. The page we are discussing is about the Mega Service (as opposed to any of the companies many shareholders), and since the same material was repeated I believed that sentence was incorrectly placed. I'm sorry you feel it was "Whitewashed", if you read down further you'll see the justification of the edit. I'm happy to split edits and there is no intentional forgetting going on.AklMeditor1 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I did not notice that the material about the founder was also in the history. I withdraw the comment about whitewashing, and I agree that the deletion from the lead was warranted. Unless someone objects I will move the ref into the history section and remove that material from the lead. Meters (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. AklMeditor1 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Meters (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC) .Thanks. AklMeditor1 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of infobox type

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)

It does seem to be a bit of a mess. The article title specifies the MEGA service, as does the DAB line, but we're using Infobox dot-com company . Are you suggesting that we use Infobox software? That makes perfect sense to me, as does switching to "Mega Limited" (see the copyright notice on [6] for an example of the company's usage). Meters (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a reverted change was the edit to use infobox software. Unless there are objections, I think we could use that change.AklMeditor1 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Infobox changes restored. Meters (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC). Thanks. AklMeditor1 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed encryption change

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).

I think an appropriate edit is to remove the specific reference to JavaScript and replace with end-user or client-side encryption. AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense if not all clients use JavaScript. Please provide the specific changes in a change "X" to "Y" format, or as a diff if this is one of your previously made changes so other editors can see exactly what you propose. Meters (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest deleting "via JavaScript" and fix the grammar, so the new line would read "Mega most notably advertises its feature that all files are encrypted locally before they are uploaded" AklMeditor1 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
done.AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed DAB change

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)

AFAIK there is no ambiguity problem between "mega" and "megaupload". This appears spurious and I suggest it is removed from the top. AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this appears to be an attempt at COI whitewashing, and I do not agree that this should be changed. I'm willing to work with you to make improvements to the article, but requests like this stretch WP:AGF. There is a very definite connection between Mega (service) and Megaupload since they were founded by the same person and provide(d) very similar services. And yes, Megaupload was indeed referred to as "Mega", including by the US Attorney's Office [7] during its prosecution of Megaupload's founder. Meters (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting fixes! You like that whitewashing term. Sorry, I wasn't saying there wasn't a connection (Kim Dotcom loves the word "mega" and is a founder of both), but I was curious whether there was actual ambiguity. Again, not a whitewash since the Megaupload history is down further in the article. Thanks again for the restructuring. AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when a COI editor make questionable edits removing the apparent connection between Mega and Megaupload on three different articles I call it whitewashing. If you want to contest the supposed connection between the two feel free to take it to the talk page, but since both the new service Mega and the former Megaupload use or used the term "Mega" the explanatory notes at the start of the articles are appropriate. Those notes are there to help readers find the correct article. Stop trying to remove them.
I appreciate the input, and can see why only other people can point out COI. Now I know the correct process (using the talk pages) we can work on making the articles both accurate and unbiased. thanks. AklMeditor1 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lead change

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)

I suggest: Mega (Stylized as MEGA) is a cloud storage... AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The topic of the article is the service, not the company, so I agree that the second option is preferable. Possibly we should work the company name into the sentence as the developer: "Mega (stylized in uppercase as MEGA) is a cloud storage and file hosting service produced by Mega Limited." Any objections to this change from anyone? Meters (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That reads well to me.AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
done Meters (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

How do you propose using this link? Meters (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be more appropriate for this information to be added to the table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_hosting_services. AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly. Propose the addition on that article's talk page then, since your conflict of interest means you should not be directly editing any article that refer to your company. Meters (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

MEGAchat site/new mega.nz site

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)

You have previously been warned about COI issues, and when your first account was unblocked for a rename you stated here that you understood the COI issues. Read WP:COIADVICE again. The reverted edit clearly did not meet those requirements. In fact it would not have been an acceptable edit by anyone, regardless of COI. The article is about the Mega service, not the company. We don't need to link to every product the company has, we don't need a link to a beta product, and the infobox should not list more than one link. This is the sort of edit that can get a COI editor in trouble and is why we ask COI editors not to edit the article in question except under very limited conditions. Meters (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I read it again and thanks again for your education and time. AklMeditor1 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Mega Limited is developing their Mega Service to encompass cloud storage, file hosting and private communications. You may have been thinking that I was discussing new products inside the company, but it's actually more features of the "Mega service", hence perhaps your confusion. I'd like to suggest a change to the first line to be: "Mega (stylized in uppercase as MEGA) is a cloud storage, file hosting and encrypted chat service produced by Mega Limited." This suggested change is on my list and your product/company confusion I'm sure is shared by many others so we need to explain this correctly.AklMeditor1 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The company has the goal and currently on a development roadmap of being "The privacy company" which encompasses much more than file storage. AklMeditor1 (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead should not be changed. Megachat development is covered in the article body, and since it's only in Beta testing it's not a service that is provided yet. When it's in production and it has some reasonable market penetration the lead can be changed. The article isn't here to be a marketing tool for the company. Meters (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal of NetNames report

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

swefklswlfjljlk

recursive acronym — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.201.243 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

More than 245 countries?

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)

MEGA Web browser add-on made mandatory

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 blows my mind. Just now I was trying to repair the passenger seat of my wife's car and was looking for an online manual that would identify the twelve wires to it. Mega offered me a manual that was just a hair over 1 GB (which for a car manual is obviously totally ridiculous) and because it was over 1 GB they said that I'd have to use their service to do so. In order to do so I have to agree to open up the security of my computer to Mega, which naturally I refused to do. Unfortunately this was after I'd paid them for the manual. They've ripped me off! This is obviously criminal.
These crooks are clearly brilliant. If the NZ police manage to out-maneuver them, my hats off to them! Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if the site was updated or what but I've been using the site for a couple of months and you don't need to install anything to download 1+ GB files. Did you make sure you're clicking the Download through browser option (not the Download through MEGAsync one)? 173.49.202.189 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Downloading problems happen when you click "Download through browser", with or without the browser plugin installed (for chromium based or mozilla based browsers). A message appears telling you that the "available browser storage for MEGA cannot handle this download size, please free up some disk space." Even if you happen to have around 100 GB of free local storage and you want to download a file of 1 or 2 gb in size, which is not that big considering we live in 2016, not 1996, and a lot of people have fast broadband access to the internet.
This "HTML5 offline storage space" problem continues to nag you, I myself did not find any option (in firefox's about:config - don't know of a chromium equivalent for this) to set a certain amount of space, and a directory you could give for those downloads. Seems HTML5 offline storage is the culprit, or the lack of flexibility to handle said, based on user interaction as I described. But installing the MEGA sync client to circumvent that embarrasing situation is laughable in my opinion. Should this be mentioned, maybe with a link to a solution (if there is any that works), just in case? 88.151.75.106 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mega_(service)/Archive_1&oldid=1050154951"