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

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

console.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 343 posts

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

#301

Post by 4ad »

iamevn wrote: post #285
wwalexander wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth reading the rest of the interview, I find Rob Pike has a very interesting/unique take on the current landscape given his involvement with Plan 9: > Now everything isn't connected, just connected to the cloud, which isn't the same thing. And uniform? Far from it, except in mediocrity. This is 2012 and we're still stitching together little microcomputers with HTTPS and ssh and calling it revolutionary.

If you want to see more on this theme, the Upspin docs[1] are a really interesting read. This 2017 talk[2] that Rob Pike gave on it is also really good. [1] https://upspin.io/ [2] https://youtu.be/ENLWEfi0Tkg

To bad development has stopped.

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

#302

Post by nix23 »

jaegerma wrote: post #94
rsync wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is this VM like a DigitalOcean or Linode VM with storage attached and the customer is fully responsible for it or is this VM managed by rsync.net like the normal storage accounts?

No. Yes.

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

#303

Post by nix23 »

limaoscarjuliet wrote: post #287

Question for rsync: You said: This might seem odd, but consider: if an rsync.net storage array is a FreeBSD system running only OpenSSH, what would the firewall be ? It would be another FreeBSD system with only port 22 open. That would introduce more failure modes, fragility and complexity without gaining any security. You seem to suggest the big firewalls do not bring any value to the table. I always thought they ha…

OpenSSH and the OS is pretty much the best place to harden your SSH connection, no need for a Firewall.

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

#304

Post by eythian »

zarkov99 wrote: post #246

For people who use rsync.net, is this something that can replace Dropbox for multi-machine synching? For all its flaws, Dropbox does allows me a semi-seamless transition between my laptop and my workstation.

As far as I know, no, unless you manage aspects of that yourself via git-annex or something similar.

My setup to do this is that I run my own nextcloud server, which handles the computer and phone etc. syncing, then nightly that's backed up to a small computer in my house (I just use rsnapshot for that), which then backs itself up to rsync.net (using plain old rsync.)

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

#305

Post by technothrasher »

Alupis wrote: post #171
vidarh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had a someone report responding to ping as a vulnerability. For the public facing firewall. We sent them back a link of prominent servers that respond to ping. Including the web server of the expensive agency that had produced the report. And whose web server had an expired SSL certificate.

Well, PCI compliance is different from regular server administration (a lot of it being smoke and mirrors, yes). I do not believe ICMP (ping) is an automatic-fail condition for PCI (at least for certain SAQ levels that I'm familiar with) - however they do show up as warnings, particularly if you can get a timestamp response (to be used in timing-based attacks). PCI prefers systems that handle CHD be "invisible" to th…

I used to get so tired of having to write up explanations of why my FreeBSD server couldn't possibly have failed a security check for a Linux vulnerability, or that the web server they were complaining about didn't actually exist, or a million other retarded false positives every quarter. Thank goodness I don't deal with PCI any longer.

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

#306

Post by vidarh »

technothrasher wrote: post #305
Alupis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, PCI compliance is different from regular server administration (a lot of it being smoke and mirrors, yes). I do not believe ICMP (ping) is an automatic-fail condition for PCI (at least for certain SAQ levels that I'm familiar with) - however they do show up as warnings, particularly if you can get a timestamp response (to be used in timing-based attacks). PCI prefers systems that handle CHD be "invisible" to th…

I used to get so tired of having to write up explanations of why my FreeBSD server couldn't possibly have failed a security check for a Linux vulnerability, or that the web server they were complaining about didn't actually exist, or a million other retarded false positives every quarter. Thank goodness I don't deal with PCI any longer.

For the last security report I had to deal with for a client, the main vulnerabilities were reported against a Google site that was merely linked to from the clients site. Not PCI compliance, so more flexibility in dealing with their incompetence, thankfully.

They reported a number of purported (non-existing) "vulnerabilities" against said Google site that included that it stopped responding to their probing soon after they started hammering it with sketchy requests... They did, to be fair, point out that this could be a defence mechanism, but dinged it for preventing them from checking for other vulnerabilities.

At least I didn't have to explain why that one was nonsense - it was rather obvious to my client that the agency they'd hired were being idiots. It's not like it was difficult to see either - the domain name of the site they'd hit had "google" in it.

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

#307

Post by tecleandor »

zarkov99 wrote: post #246

For people who use rsync.net, is this something that can replace Dropbox for multi-machine synching? For all its flaws, Dropbox does allows me a semi-seamless transition between my laptop and my workstation.

I think Syncthing could be better for those purposes. I use that for synching my homes (config files and essential work files, keys and so on) between my desktop and laptop.

I have a copy running in my NAS to always have a copy available, one in my laptop, one in my desktop, and I was thinking about having one in my phone to run only when I'm charging (so I don't kill my battery).

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

#309

Post by bombcar »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #244

The pricing model doesn't make sense to me. Their prices start at $0.025/GB/month, so renting 1TB of storage for a year would cost $300 - at that price, I could just buy my own disks and run ZFS myself. I kinda hoped they could offer lower prices using economies of scale. I checked the prices for Tarsnap, expecting it to be cheaper - it's actually 10x more expensive! Maybe someone can explain what I'm missing.

Offsite - no server needed - not paying for electricity.

DIY is often cheaper if you ignore the cost of “doing it yourself” - and securely storing an offsite server is more than just the cost of a disk.

Native ZFS is also a feature for those who can use it.

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

#310

Post by bombcar »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #292
cat199 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DIY is way cheaper, true. but for comparison, aws is ~$100/tb/month

AWS Glacier is ~$4/tb/month. Getting data out of there costs extra, but for backups of last resort you don't expect to ever need, that may be a workable tradeoff.

IIRC rsync.net doesn’t charge for bandwidth in any direction which for some use cases is nice - a set and forget billing type.
Post reply on HN