5 ms·
This would be so awful. Most vanilla services like redis, postgres, etc... would need to deal with the frontend spew directly instead of offloading that to a br
by abeyer 4y ago
This would be so awful. Most vanilla services like redis, postgres, etc... would need to deal with the frontend spew directly instead of offloading that to a bridge as an intermediary.
- tlarkworthy 4y agothe bridge is just a proxy, the volume if traffic is the same but you now have added a regional hop. Exposing your redis and postgres on the public web is not a good idea, but there are tons of internal usecases, and things like postgres actually have a security mechanism so its not default "insecure"
- bsyoucandoit 4y agoYou CAN expose your db, cache services as long as they are secured. The bridge just pushes the can down the road and you have to secure it. It assumes the internal network is safer which is kind of a security sham to begin with. In the long run it would make the individual service software more robust because security vulnerabilities would get attention and get fixed. Therefore benefitting more than just the bridge owner.
- Timon3 4y agoYou could still have a reverse proxy to deal with the worst of it. But if the client could already talk the right protocols it would remove a lot of unnecessary complexity.