There are a few comparisons being introduced already in this thread, and I'm tempted to ask of more, so I'd love to see documentation on this vs. other solutions like is presented with Terraform:
HashiCorp Boundary
31–40 of 171 posts
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#32Hello HN! I'm the founder of HashiCorp. I'm excited to see Boundary here! I want to note a few things about Boundary, why we made it, why it is different than other solutions in the space, etc. * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of peop…
> * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of people because we feel it's the right way to think about access control. Note: of course as as a company we plan on commercializing Boundary at some point, but we'll do this similarly to Vault, th…
> I wish you operated more like other, real, open source companies that use subscriptions or managed service offerings and don't lock features behind various obscure pricing tiers.
"I want all of the functionality I want without having to pay for it." I hate how discussions around software businesses so often descend into purity tests around how much a company chooses to give away. Software is indeed eating the world, but the eternal battle of who has to pay for the underlying tools of said software continues.
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#33Hello HN! I'm the founder of HashiCorp. I'm excited to see Boundary here! I want to note a few things about Boundary, why we made it, why it is different than other solutions in the space, etc. * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of peop…
Is there a simple paper that explains how this works on a technical level? I have a hard time visualizing how a connection to a remote host would be set up if it runs through Boundary. Does "without requiring direct network access" mean Boundary works as a proxy? And how does Boundary enable the connection if the host does not have direct network access?
By "direct network access" we mean between the client and the end host. The Boundary worker node (which proxies traffic) would need to be able to make a network connection to the end host, and the client in turn would need to be able to make a network connection to the worker node.
This indirection provides a way to keep your public and private (or even private and private) networks distinct to remove "being on the same network" as a sufficient credential for access. At the same time, it ensures that the traffic is only proxied if that particular session is authenticated.
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of people because we feel it's the right way to think about access control. Note: of course as as a company we plan on commercializing Boundary at some point, but we'll do this similarly to Vault, th…
How is this corporate speak? If an indie dev said his/her project is going to be open source initially and then newer features would get monetized, would your first thought be that this dev is "breaking into the space under the guise of open source altruism"?
If they started out by misleadingly[0] describing it as "$THING is free and open source."? Yes!
Edit: 0: It's (presumably) technically not false now, but the implication is that $THING is honestly intended to be FOSS, immediately followed by admiting that their actual intent is to sabotage that embrace-extend-extinguish-style as soon as it's commercially expedient to do so.
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#35I want to give a shout out to Tailscale. It relies on Wireguard and has been dead simple to setup and configure. Stability has been great as well.
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#36Looks like Yahoo's Athenz
https://github.com/yahoo/athenz
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other way around, boundary needs to exec your client application. They're more clear about how it works here: https://www.boundaryproject.io/docs/getting-started/connect-... Boundary comes with built-in wrappers for ssh, rdp, and postgres, but you can "boundary exec" to run some other application inside the TCP-wrapped transport, apparently.
Some sort of LD_PRELOAD style trickery? Or are they intercepting syscalls? edit: seems nothing that complicated, more like ssh-style tunnel where Boundary has a local listening socket which you need to point the client to. That is if I'm understanding it correctly.
That is correct! The local proxy has a listening socket and handles all the authentication, encapsulation, and forwarding transparently.
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#38Hello HN! I'm the founder of HashiCorp. I'm excited to see Boundary here! I want to note a few things about Boundary, why we made it, why it is different than other solutions in the space, etc. * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of peop…
> * Boundary is free and open source. Similar to when we built Vault, we feel like the solution-space for identity-based security is too commercialized. We want to provide access to this type of security to a broader set of people because we feel it's the right way to think about access control. Note: of course as as a company we plan on commercializing Boundary at some point, but we'll do this similarly to Vault, th…
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to use any doublespeak here.
Boundary is free and open source. There is no corporate speak here. It is FOSS licensed (MPL2) and everything announced today is completely FOSS.
We do sell open core software and if there is any place where you feel we aren't being honest about that please let me know and I'll work to address that. I added that "NOTE" at the end of the point specifically to ensure I was being honest and show I wasn't trying to hide anything.
We are also starting to offer managed services for folks who prefer to consume our software that way. The managed service offerings do unlock the typically enterprise features. Example: https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hcp-consul-public-beta
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#39I want to give a shout out to Tailscale. It relies on Wireguard and has been dead simple to setup and configure. Stability has been great as well.
I am also a big Tailscale fan, is anyone able to do a quick comparison on how Boundary relates?
Re: HashiCorp Boundary
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this corporate speak? If an indie dev said his/her project is going to be open source initially and then newer features would get monetized, would your first thought be that this dev is "breaking into the space under the guise of open source altruism"?
If they started out by misleadingly[0] describing it as "$THING is free and open source."? Yes! Edit: 0: It's (presumably) technically not false now , but the implication is that $THING is honestly intended to be FOSS, immediately followed by admiting that their actual intent is to sabotage that embrace-extend-extinguish-style as soon as it's commercially expedient to do so.
> their actual intent is to sabotage that as soon as it’s commercially expedient to do so.
Sabotage??? Wow, that’s quite an accusation for a company that’s, you know, a company. You might have an argument if they kept quiet about plans to monetize the product later, but that allegation is laughable.
If you’re not comfortable with the terms, don’t use the product. They’re being upfront about their plans. This anti-commercial position is hypocritical.