3 ms·
Its even more of a risk potentially because big companies have people full time working on keeping systems up to date and monitored. How many self hosters have
by baroffoos 7y ago
Its even more of a risk potentially because big companies have people full time working on keeping systems up to date and monitored. How many self hosters have a full monitoring system powerful enough to detect attacks and keep their software up to date and secured as soon as updates come out?
How many people self hosting are even qualified to run a secure system? I bet most of them are just regular devs who know just enough about linux to get something online.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI don't think you understood my point. Yes, one particular risk might be higher. But you don't need to do security better or even on par with a big company. You just need your total risk of data exposure to be lower. You can bet big companies have lots of hackers trying to break into them with the newest 0-days, spearphish their employees, etc... there are so many threats you practically don't face if you're self-hosting.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Its even more of a risk potentially because big companies have people full time working on keeping systems up to date and monitored. Beyond the thing about different types and frequency of attacks - sure, I trust Google's security more than my own. But I do trust my own security more than that of Random-Startup.IO, who likely have no full-time security people, and little incentive to get the job right (paying attention to security slows down your incredible journey). Also, even with big companies, this argument applies primarily to the few like Google, Facebook or Apple. Your Random Megacorp from outside tech community usually focuses its security efforts on satisfying regulators and neutering their own employees, who'd otherwise happily copy out all sensitive data to make their jobs easier.