Live data from Hacker News

Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

console.dev

101–110 of 343 posts

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#101
post #53
post #48

I wonder if they have any sales to large enterprises or similar institutions. In my experience, the larger organizations will have a "security" questionnaire required of their vendors, and the person administering it is a droid, incapable of evaluating whether the questions, originally written in the mid-00s and only updated for buzzword compliance since, are applicable to modern security practice today, or to the pa…

"I wonder if they have any sales to large enterprises or similar institutions." Yes, certainly. We frequently fill out very detailed checklists and questionnaires related to our quality policy, standards, internal policies, etc. We're also very honest about how we approach these issues: https://www.rsync.net/resources/regulatory/pci.html ... and they generally appreciate the honesty.

> Our platform only answers on port 22 with OpenSSH.

I do security and I title this "Most secured platform in the world."

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#102
post #53
post #48

I wonder if they have any sales to large enterprises or similar institutions. In my experience, the larger organizations will have a "security" questionnaire required of their vendors, and the person administering it is a droid, incapable of evaluating whether the questions, originally written in the mid-00s and only updated for buzzword compliance since, are applicable to modern security practice today, or to the pa…

"I wonder if they have any sales to large enterprises or similar institutions." Yes, certainly. We frequently fill out very detailed checklists and questionnaires related to our quality policy, standards, internal policies, etc. We're also very honest about how we approach these issues: https://www.rsync.net/resources/regulatory/pci.html ... and they generally appreciate the honesty.

It’s hilarious that the first "vulnerability" in the example report[0] linked in this page is basically "SSH is accessible". Well… Duh !

[0] https://www.rsync.net/resources/regulatory/PCI_usw-s005_repo...

EDIT: It’s marked as "PASS" though, so it’s all fine, just funny.

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#103
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to use this simple setup as well. It's too bad ZFS snapshots cannot be sent and stored encrypted. I would love to use rsync.net but the idea to have my data sitting in someone else's computer in plain text feels wrong. So instead I have to use restic, which re-implements many features of ZFS and this also feels wrong.

You can 'zfs send' to a (special kind of) rsync.net account. We support encrypted zfs[1][2][3] and raw-send, etc. The pricing is the same but there is a 1TB minimum because we need to give you your own VM (bhyve) and we have to burn an ipv4 address for you, etc. [1] https://www.rsync.net/products/zfs.html [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/rsync... [3] https://www.servethehome.com/automating-p…

> The snapshots are immutable (read-only) and cannot be altered in any way. In this way, your rsync.net account protects you from ransomware or malicious parties.

Is this still true for these special ZFS enabled accounts?

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#104
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to (late 2000s) work for a tiny, tiny company that was courting a customer in the mobile banking space. They wanted us to tick boxes. So we bought a box (some sort of Fortinet) that said it was a firewall and IDS. Plugged it in, used it as our new router. "Cost of doing business." Could we have argued with them during the sales process? Only if we wanted to lose the sale. The Fortinet was cheap compared to the…

Cost of doing business, or ... introducing new Fortinet vulnerabilities into your infrastructure? I know you mentioned 2000s, but it's funny that these contractually obligated boxes might introduce more worry: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fortinet-fixe...

lol. anti-viruses are the virus. the ultimate virus. don't execute any binary and you'll be fine.

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#105
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid the issues I describe have been with Ubuntu. Here's the first line from my "linux sins" file as an example: https://askubuntu.com/questions/1151283/disable-nautilus-cac... If you copy a large file to a USB drive on either Ubuntu or Mint the progress bar goes to 100% instantly and closes and the actual transfer of the file is done in the background without the knowledge of the user. And the answer is "It's…

Fair enough, but I'd just like to point out that specific issue you linked to happens on Windows too (and almost certainly MacOS as well). It's just how device writes work, and is why Windows users have been told for years to select their device -> Eject instead of just yanking the USB drive out when Windows says 100%. So, not exactly a fair criticism in my opinion, but your overall point stands - Linux can be rough…

It doesn't happen on Windows because the cache is made to be small enough that the caching and flushing happen at the same time regardless of the size of your RAM. So your transfer progress bar will end at approximately the same time as the actual transfer. I don't use MacOS but I assume they have the UX & UI figured out as well. That's not the case on Linux, the progress bar will disappear in seconds while the transfer can last hours.

And, I say this with no ill-will toward you, I'm not trying to be antagonistic but you're having the same response as all linux users I encounter online. You're denying the problem even exists, saying it's not fair and it might be rough for some use cases? This is transferring a file to a USB stick, this is a very basic use case, and the UI is broken and the UX is dogshit (excuse my french). If we can't admit there is a problem we're never going to get around to fixing it.

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#106
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid the issues I describe have been with Ubuntu. Here's the first line from my "linux sins" file as an example: https://askubuntu.com/questions/1151283/disable-nautilus-cac... If you copy a large file to a USB drive on either Ubuntu or Mint the progress bar goes to 100% instantly and closes and the actual transfer of the file is done in the background without the knowledge of the user. And the answer is "It's…

Fair enough, but I'd just like to point out that specific issue you linked to happens on Windows too (and almost certainly MacOS as well). It's just how device writes work, and is why Windows users have been told for years to select their device -> Eject instead of just yanking the USB drive out when Windows says 100%. So, not exactly a fair criticism in my opinion, but your overall point stands - Linux can be rough…

> I'd just like to point out that specific issue you linked to happens on Windows too

The poster of the question explicitly states that this behavior does not happen on Windows using the same hardware. And indeed, Windows doesn't cache as aggressively as Linux does (which is one of several reasons why Linux tends to have better disk performance and less risk of disk fragmentation), so no, by design, this issue is more pronounced on Linux.

The actual reason why Windows users are told to explicitly eject instead of just yanking the device is because there are various background processes that might be writing to the device (particularly relevant if you're using SpeedBoost or whatever it's called), not because of file copy progress bars being entirely unaware of the OS' caching mechanisms.

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#107
I used to run Linux for everything but I’m having to use Windows these days. What would it take to get rsync.net playing nicely with windows? I’m imagining Windows subsystem for Linux (ubuntu) with duplicity installed to it? Are there any major hiccups to that sort of setup?

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#108
post #21

Really well done interview, some real interesting bits in there. One part concerned me though, in the interview, it mentions "we own (and have built) all of our own platform." and it fails to mention a few critically important key parts of a storage platform, first being encryption. How are personal files being handled? Is encryption being used? Are you able to access this data using a shared key? As well as continge…

> How are personal files being handled? Is encryption being used? Are you able to access this data using a shared key?

Personally, I feel like if you're going to encrypt your data, you should be encrypting it on your end, before sending it to some backup provider who may or may not be keeping your data secure.

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#109
post #58

Big fan of rsync.net but the firewall comment caught me a bit off-guard. The benefit of a firewall is that it's an isolated system which - apart from port blocking - guarantees a certain level of traffic logging and known-good state. If you have everything on one host I'd say your overall setup on that host becomes much more complex because you only need to get hit by one successful exploit chain and all logs on that…

On a reasonable-size setup, I would expect that the logs are exported to dedicated log storage (log-only machines) as part of an effort to preserve accurate log files even in the case of a successful attack on one of the hosts. It is not especially hard to ensure that, for example, a record of an SSH login attempt gets recorded to an external server before the request is authenticated. So if you have (for example) an…

The firewall is still helpful in case they hire a new person who opens a port and forgets to close it one day

Re: Interview with CEO of rsync.net: “no firewalls and no routers”

#110
post #91
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "security risk" i see there is number 1, and that is all to do with physical security. > Disadvantage #1 – Open ports on unmanaged switches are a security risk Why? Is there something that would prevent an attacker with physical access from unplugging an existing cable? Does the average managed switch config have mac limits and auto shutdown if a link is lost for just a few seconds? Mac limits are easilly by…

> Correct they can't. Managed switches without qos set up can't prioritise traffic either. > If your switch is dropping packets, you don't have enough bandwidth. this isn't true, there exist more bottlenecks than just bandwidth, e.g. try sending 10 byte packets instead of 1500 byte packets and watch as your switch starts dropping due to CPU exhaustion > Ultimately it comes down to how big your buffers are whether you…

Dunno how you'd make a 10 byte packet, the smallest valid ethernet packet was 64 bytes, and I'd expect my switch to forward those at line speed just fine, and drop any runt packets just fine too. Maybe you could hack a network driver to deliver some really nasty frames, but that doesn't seem a likely situation for rsyncs use case -- not compared with a switch failure for other means.

The point about QOS is that it often isn't necessary because you shouldn't be hitting those limits, and if you do you often don't care (because you've got half a dozen identical desktop computers talking to an unmanaged network not doing any relevant dscp marking). In rsyncs case the traffic they're sending is all ssh traffic - what's going to be doing the tagging and differentiation?

Post reply on HN