5 ms·

One thing I hate about such articles is this "((use)) a managed database service" hint. Many if not most readers' data are confidential and storing them on a m

One thing I hate about such articles is this "((use)) a managed database service" hint. Many if not most readers' data are confidential and storing them on a machine managed by unknown people seems foolish to me. Am I paranoid?

dewey 6y ago
> Am I paranoid? Yes, because letting someone who knows what they are doing run your database is in most cases a better idea / more secure than doing it yourself if that's not your main business. If you pick a reputable provider there's not really an incentive for them to not keep your data confidential. Example: All the open MongoDB instances because the owners expose them to the internet with a simple configuration mistakes.
latch 6y ago
Yes, but no. I'm a staunch believer that multi-tenant hardware and managed services are _obvious_ no-gos for privacy reasons. But, having done B2B where i had to deal with security procedures/questionnaires/documentation/checklists from large customers, no one else agrees.
- watermelon0 6y ago
  From the point of view of those large customers, would you really trust people working in company X more than AWS/Azure/GCP? Especially since those customers already use other SaaS providers, that probably use at least on the big cloud providers. There definitely are companies that employ great engineers, follow best practices, and can be on par with big cloud providers, but generally you shouldn't really expect that. In such cases, I'd rather see they leverage managed services, instead of deploying their own servers.
  - latch 6y ago
    Both SaaS and multi-tenant hardware have massive surface area. For multi-tenancy, it isn't about trusting AWS/Azure/GCP, it's about trusting everyone you're sharing hardware with. Cloud products are difficult to setup (AWS in particular). If you can't setup PostgreSQL properly, why are we assuming you can setup AWS properly? Look at the recent Endgame pen testing tool (1) (1) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26154038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26154038
    - natmaka 6y ago
      This! See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26725185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26725185
mpolun 6y ago
I don't see how it's any different than using any hosting provider. It's probably worth encrypting your databases, but if you don't trust your hosting provider you're hosed -- managed service or not. If your paranoia is justified (which it may be, depending on your needs), you need to host the machines in your own datacenter
- natmaka 6y ago
  > If your paranoia is justified (which it may be, depending on your needs), you need to host the machines in your own datacenter Indeed! That's the reason why the author shouldn't write "((use)) a managed database service", à la "whatever you have in hand, screws or nails, use a hammer!"
mixedCase 6y ago
You are, unless you have a very good reason to treat your cloud provider as a likely malicious actor, in which case good luck setting up your own data center.

dewey 6y ago

> Am I paranoid? Yes, because letting someone who knows what they are doing run your database is in most cases a better idea / more secure than doing it yourself if that's not your main business. If you pick a reputable provider there's not really an incentive for them to not keep your data confidential. Example: All the open MongoDB instances because the owners expose them to the internet with a simple configuration mistakes.

latch 6y ago

Yes, but no. I'm a staunch believer that multi-tenant hardware and managed services are _obvious_ no-gos for privacy reasons. But, having done B2B where i had to deal with security procedures/questionnaires/documentation/checklists from large customers, no one else agrees.

watermelon0 6y ago
From the point of view of those large customers, would you really trust people working in company X more than AWS/Azure/GCP? Especially since those customers already use other SaaS providers, that probably use at least on the big cloud providers. There definitely are companies that employ great engineers, follow best practices, and can be on par with big cloud providers, but generally you shouldn't really expect that. In such cases, I'd rather see they leverage managed services, instead of deploying their own servers.
- latch 6y ago
  Both SaaS and multi-tenant hardware have massive surface area. For multi-tenancy, it isn't about trusting AWS/Azure/GCP, it's about trusting everyone you're sharing hardware with. Cloud products are difficult to setup (AWS in particular). If you can't setup PostgreSQL properly, why are we assuming you can setup AWS properly? Look at the recent Endgame pen testing tool (1) (1) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26154038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26154038
  - natmaka 6y ago
    This! See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26725185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26725185

mpolun 6y ago

I don't see how it's any different than using any hosting provider. It's probably worth encrypting your databases, but if you don't trust your hosting provider you're hosed -- managed service or not. If your paranoia is justified (which it may be, depending on your needs), you need to host the machines in your own datacenter

natmaka 6y ago
> If your paranoia is justified (which it may be, depending on your needs), you need to host the machines in your own datacenter Indeed! That's the reason why the author shouldn't write "((use)) a managed database service", à la "whatever you have in hand, screws or nails, use a hammer!"

mixedCase 6y ago

You are, unless you have a very good reason to treat your cloud provider as a likely malicious actor, in which case good luck setting up your own data center.