5 ms·
That's one of the selling point of Saas compared to hosted instance honestly. Some company think that having Confluence hosted internally is going to increase t
by polote 5y ago
That's one of the selling point of Saas compared to hosted instance honestly. Some company think that having Confluence hosted internally is going to increase the security. But this is wrong. When you rely on a Saas provider. The provider has people who monitor the infrastructure constantly whereas when you hosted on your own server, the confluence instance is just one of the many services that they manage. And even if some company will be very reactive to events like this. The majority of companies will be much slower.
And in addition to that. When you use Saas. Security is a top priority, a Saas provider can't allow to have data of its customers leaked on the web. Whereas once again when it is internal data people will be less cautious
- macksd 5y agoThis isn't always true. Using a SaaS is outsourcing these concerns, and sometimes you're outsourcing them to someone who will do better than you would and sometimes worse. I've worked on a couple of SaaS where security was absolutely not top priority. Especially in Silicon Valley, organizations often value growth over sound processes, fully staffed security teams, and managing tech debt. Many a SaaS has leaked customer data and survived, so many think they CAN allow that risk.
- polote 5y agoI didn't say that it is always the case. The same argument you use can be used to talk about companies who are going to self host Confluence. I agree that a lot of Saas startup are going to neglect security. But here we are talking about Knowledge base tools Saas companies. This is not some standard Saas company. They know they are in charge of company internal secrets. Or at lest I hope
- macksd 5y agoAny time a SaaS gets compromised there's a similar comment here about how obviously this is going to happen when you give someone else your data, and it should have just all been within your own firewall, unexposed directly to the Internet. I mean right this minute there's a privacy-focused SaaS on the front page for not being as private as everyone thinks. There's also a network hardware vendor on the front page for including back doors. A philosophy like "SaaS vendors know they can't allow security breaches" is really glossing over the need for layers of security and knowing that it's ultimately all on the trustworthiness of specifically who is involved.
- polote 5y agoIf you can afford to not expose it to the internet obviously you are going to have better security. But this is not always desirable talking about wiki software. I can't disagree with you. But you can either deny that the average Saas is more secure than a forgot Confluence internal servers exposed to the internet
- macksd 5y agoWell yes, public wikis are one thing. But before you were talking about protecting internal secrets.
- tjoff 5y agoIf you are running it accessible from the outside maybe. But a big point of hosting it internally is that you don't have to.
- tatersolid 5y agoThere is no “outside” and “inside” anymore. Have you ever had a penetration test on your network?
- tjoff 5y agoThe difference then is shifted towards whether it is a targeted attack or not. And that is a huge difference. That difference would undoubtedly have saved every single company that was affected in the current story.
- iso1631 5y agoIt's the selling point of self hosting. My jira is behind x509 client certs, others I know are behind oidc connections. You need to be an authenticated user to even load the page. There's two layers of protection from two different companies.