Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

embrasure.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#21

Post by TaronAvagyan »

2bluesc wrote: post #11
TaronAvagyan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expected "self-hosted" to mean I can host anywhere You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution. Embrasure is self-hosted since each instance is deployed within an organization's infrastructure, but as you mentioned, it's AWS-dependent.

> You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution. I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud. If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted". [0] https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-se…

Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation."

For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more.

[0]https://infisical.com/docs/self-hosting/overview

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#22

Post by TaronAvagyan »

vcryan wrote: post #12

AWS Secrets Manager is another AWS-based secrets manager

True, but it doesn't have a program wrapper and isn't part of the AWS Free tier.

For a lot of teams, it's a better choice than Embrasure, but Embrasure serves its use case well and all of its components can be deployed with AWS's free plan.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#23

Post by throwaway883322 »

_r5xp wrote: post #17
linuxdude314 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s self managed, AWS is hosting it. This may seem like nit picking, but I can assure you confusing your audience will hamper the success of your project if you are aiming for growth.

[dead]

Quote from Dreamfactory:

> "Typically, self-hosted software is installed and operated on servers physically located within the organization’s premises"

When you claim it is self hosted everyone assumes you can host it anywhere, including AWS if they want. Your software can't do that.

You need to make it clear, otherwise you will alienate your potential users. You may be technically correct for a limited definition of self hosted, but that is not what users expect.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#24

Post by throwaway883322 »

TaronAvagyan wrote: post #21
2bluesc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution. I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud. If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted". [0] https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-se…

Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation." For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more. [0] https://infisical.com/docs/self-hosting/overview

Self-hosting does not mean you can't run it on AWS, but people expect more. Just look at Postgresql as an example of a self hosted software. You can run it in the cloud or your own basement.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#25

Post by walthamstow »

TaronAvagyan wrote: post #16
johnea wrote: post #13

Contradiction in terms: "self-hosted, AWS-based"

I would disagree. Sure, you don't own the hardware, but you have total control over Embrasure's functionality within your self-contained instance. Wikipedia: "Self-hosting is the practice of running and maintaining a website or service using a private web server, instead of using a service outside of someone's own control."

Yes, correct, AWS Secrets Manager is out of your own control. You don't control it. AWS does. They can change it or even end it as a product any day they like.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#26

Post by figassis »

TaronAvagyan wrote: post #21
2bluesc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution. I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud. If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted". [0] https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-se…

Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation." For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more. [0] https://infisical.com/docs/self-hosting/overview

I don’t think we should go down that rabbit hole of redefining self hosting ad anything other than host it in your own infra. So if AWS disappeared today, would your product still be self hosted? If being self hosted does not actually depend on your product but on the availability of another provider, there I don’t think we should call it self hosted.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#28

Post by BrandoElFollito »

_r5xp wrote: post #17
linuxdude314 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s self managed, AWS is hosting it. This may seem like nit picking, but I can assure you confusing your audience will hamper the success of your project if you are aiming for growth.

[dead]

I work in Cybersecurity. If I hear self-hosted, I understand "on premises", that is that the service is inside the company.

"Self-hosted at AWS", while technically correct, is not what springs to mind and can bite you back.

I agree that self learned, hosted at AWS is best and your will get more relevant traction

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#29

Post by TaronAvagyan »

throwaway883322 wrote: post #24
TaronAvagyan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation." For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more. [0] https://infisical.com/docs/self-hosting/overview

Self-hosting does not mean you can't run it on AWS, but people expect more. Just look at Postgresql as an example of a self hosted software. You can run it in the cloud or your own basement.

Postgresql is a great example.

Re: Show HN: A self-hosted, AWS-based secrets manager

#30

Post by redeeman »

TaronAvagyan wrote: post #21
2bluesc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution. I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud. If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted". [0] https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-se…

Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation." For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more. [0] https://infisical.com/docs/self-hosting/overview

> Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation."

I wont 100% discount that I live in a bubble, but try ask 100 random people what "self hosted" means, I would strongly guess that very very few says "I can (only) spin up some resources on AWS and deploy it there"

Post reply on HN