211–220 of 235 posts
They seem to have unpublished the article, but it’s still available on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
Not a good look. If they got something wrong, a retraction is appropriate after making these kinds of claims and accusations. Simply removing the post without explanation is irresponsible and unprofessional.
They seem to have unpublished the article, but it’s still available on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
Not a good look. If they got something wrong, a retraction is appropriate after making these kinds of claims and accusations. Simply removing the post without explanation is irresponsible and unprofessional.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That screenshot where the attacker agrees that buying their services would help makes me have a very strong suspicion this attack is either faked, sponsored by or in some way Hudson Rock is in cahoots with the attackers. That screenshot is a pure 100% advertisement manufactured by Hudson Rock one way or another. As they usually say.. I'd check whoever is running Hudson Rock's hard drive.
The original HN link redirects to this company's home page now, so the blog post was likely an ad campaign to get traffic.
Currently the linked URL 302-redirects to '/'. @dang, consider replacing with: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
But on the other hand, that they yanked the blog post is interesting and shouldn't be glossed over by just linking to the archive. What changed?
Edit: It looks like Snowflake's official response denies essentially all of the claims in TFA. Maybe Hudson Rock got taken in by a dishonest source and pulled the article when they realized their mistake?
https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00A...
Hi, Felipe at Snowflake here. Here is the latest from Snowflake on this issue: https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00A... We'll keep updating that URL with any further news.
Will there be any direct comment regarding the article here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Snowflake runs it's own storage and compute (on either AWS, GCP, or Azure depending on what you pick).
You can definitely bring your own storage (e.g. store your data in your own s3 buckets and integrate it with snowflake) using storage integrations and external tables. See https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/data-load-s3-config... Personally believe this is the right approach as the data resides in a location fully under the company's control. You could ditch snowflake and the data still resides in your s3 bucke…
They seem to have unpublished the article, but it’s still available on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
Not a good look. If they got something wrong, a retraction is appropriate after making these kinds of claims and accusations. Simply removing the post without explanation is irresponsible and unprofessional.
Currently the linked URL 302-redirects to '/'. @dang, consider replacing with: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...
@dang is a no-op, consider contacting at the email in the footer. But on the other hand, that they yanked the blog post is interesting and shouldn't be glossed over by just linking to the archive. What changed? Edit: It looks like Snowflake's official response denies essentially all of the claims in TFA. Maybe Hudson Rock got taken in by a dishonest source and pulled the article when they realized their mistake? http…