Live data from Hacker News

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

console.dev

321–330 of 343 posts

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

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A WAF is not the same thing as a general-purpose firewall. Think of it as a web proxy with filtering capabilities.

Yeah, I find myself kinda annoyed at the term WAF, as it overloads the term "firewall". But your description is quite accurate. Whether you're doing your filtering with an expensive F5 Big-IP with its nifty glowy logo on the front bezel, an haproxy instance from some WAF-as-a-service vendor, or Nginx and some plugins running on a VM, any of those, done right, can serve in a WAF role. I say that now, but I wish I unde…

It seems to me the basic definition of a firewall is:

"A firewall is a network security device that monitors incoming and outgoing network traffic and decides whether to allow or block specific traffic based on a defined set of security rules."

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/security/firewalls/wh...

"usually firewall \ ˈfī(- ə)r- ˌwȯl \ : computer hardware or software that prevents unauthorized access to private data (as on a company's local area network or intranet) by outside computer users (as of the Internet)"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firewall

This and other "web application firewalls" seem to meet these kinds of definitions. Add to the fact more and more "traditional" firewall appliances are adding behavioral filtering and have had application tracking for decades and we're far from firewall being limited to only a layer 3 device.

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

#322
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would they need a firewall for? They have full control over the entire environment. They can (and should) just filter host-side.

Host level filtering doesn’t make it “not a firewall”. If they drop packets in the NIC before hitting userspace (they do this), that’s a firewall. Iptables is a firewall.

Exactly.

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

#323
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I was just lamenting the state of these forms today. I feel like many of the questions are variations on the theme of “what antivirus software do you use to protect your basement mainframe from your corporate network traffic?” “N/A” isn’t a long enough answer, so it feels like you need to keep explaining “the Internet”, LLC of a centralized corporate network, SaaS, etc. Is there a modern, no-nonsense guide to filling…

This is going to look like I'm a plant with the timing of my comment and this "Launch HN" post that just made it to the front page, but with that out of the way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26513040

Looks like Stacksi is aiming to fix this pain point.

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

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you providing network level redundancy with dumb switches? My only guess is that the ISP is already doing HSRP/VRRP on the gateway and you can setup multiple NICs/switches with something like CARP and being careful not to make L2 loops.

Why would they need nework-level redundancy? This is a backup service, and should not have production load on it at any time. I'd rather see a system with a dumb switch and the risk of a 3-4 hour outage if it fails than a smart switch that can then be cracked. (Even then, 3-4 hours is a stretch, as all the remote hands has to do to replace a failed switch is put in any other dumb switch.)

Your reasoning could be applied when there is low number of users doing not-so-urgent-nor-important-things. However, the service is provided for a lot of users at the same time here, spread globally and all with their own applications and problems, and accordingly the total impact could potentially be much bigger.

Having the handicap of needing to wait 3-4 hours before being able to access your backups in an emergency, could make a day-and-night difference for continuity.

So I would argue it has nothing to do with "being a backup service", but rather that their users could afford a 3-4 hours of waiting. Or that they don't think like that.

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

#325

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…

I have had gripes about usb drive writing in the past, but what you describe does not happen in my install of Ubuntu 20.04.

It depends on the size of your RAM as far as I understand the issue.

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

#327
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aft…

Sounds like a scan mis-configuration on your client's part. All PCI vuln scanners I've used require you to specify IP addresses and Domain Names you want scanned, and do not follow on-page external links.

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

#328
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

My parent org is starting to take their vuln scan results and report them to c levels.

When they told me I informed them I stopped using their vulnerability scanner years ago because they would not allow me to chnage anything in it, including exclusions to icmp time stamps or other vulns Ive mitigated while proper fixes were in the works.

So I rolled my own and use that to audit my systems. They don’t care because “policy”. My c levels will just ask and then promptly disregard all future reports, adding to the noise

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

#329
post #327
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aft…

Sounds like a scan mis-configuration on your client's part. All PCI vuln scanners I've used require you to specify IP addresses and Domain Names you want scanned, and do not follow on-page external links.

Not the client. Third party agency hired to assess the security, and who clearly did not apply any critical thinking before sending it off. And as I pointed out, not PCI.

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

#330
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Or am I missing something?" Yes, one minor thing ... Although you are correct that Apple is not officially supporting the latest versions of OSX on that hardware, there is a trivially easy hack of the system that will allow you to load newer versions of OSX. So, like many of you, I am not running Catalina but I am running an updated, patched version of OSX.

Neat, does that include System Integrity Protection and Authenticated Root Volume on your hardware?

from what i remember open core doesn't need to disable sip to function, just to install. the firmware is the actual firmware upgrades released by apple [everyone was shocked they supported this] that come embedded in the osx updates. my updates worked fine.

I'm pretty sure sip gets re-enabled each boot, but to check for authenticated root volume i think i need to install the g20 to run crutil or whatever it is.

Post reply on HN