4 ms·

They note that "In a statement, Barracuda said it will be providing the replacement product to impacted customers at no cost" Would you still switch to a non b

They note that "In a statement, Barracuda said it will be providing the replacement product to impacted customers at no cost" Would you still switch to a non barracuda device ?

insanitybit 3y ago
If you have to go through the cost of a replacement anyways - as in, the time and effort to actually do it - the cost of the hardware matters a lot less.
- Urist-Green 3y ago
  I suspect there is a higher level question at play stemming from the "deny" comments. Do you think Barracuda is uniquely vulnerable to these types of threats and, if not, would their competitors make similar efforts to recover?
- veave 3y ago
  If this is the mindset of some people it's no wonder that companies would rather deny the problem and stick their heads in the sand.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    The mindset that changing a system out has risks and that engineers/ops time is very expensive? I mean, I hear you, it sucks that being honest about the issue is leading to punishment, but rationally this is just how people are going to end up responding. If they really want to avoid this, don't give it to them for free, pay them for it.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      No it’s not. Considering changing vendors because a vendor did the right thing and sent out free replacements for potentially compromised hardware is not something any sane client would do.
      - genocidicbunny 3y ago
        The GP didn't say that though. They said they were already considering replacing one vendor with another, prior to this incident. As I understood it, the calculus was 'do nothing and keep the current barracuda stuff for a while longer or find another vendor and replace the barracuda stuff?' Now the former option is gone, and the calculus is 'replace current barracuda stuff with barracuda or another vendor?' So if you were already considering switching vendors, now is an opportune time to do so. You're going to be paying the eng/ops cost now anyhow, and as many in this thread have pointed out, one or two fairly off-the-shelf hw appliances are not exactly a big spend.
        kortilla 3y ago
        >You're going to be paying the eng/ops cost now anyhow, No you’re not. The people in this thread saying that have never actually managed technology because a vendor change that also requires a hardware swap is significantly more expensive than the drop in hardware swap. The only exception to this is if you were already in the middle of the transition and were planning to phase it out shortly anyway.
- kortilla 3y ago
  This notion is detached from reality. A drop-in replacement of the same thing is an order of magnitude less work than switching vendors. Even adequately researching alternatives, let alone doing some trial testing, will take far more time than a swap.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    They've already been researching alternatives.
phpisthebest 3y ago
the physical cost of the equipment is often the cheapest part of a deployment.

They note that "In a statement, Barracuda said it will be providing the replacement product to impacted customers at no cost" Would you still switch to a non barracuda device ?

insanitybit 3y ago

If you have to go through the cost of a replacement anyways - as in, the time and effort to actually do it - the cost of the hardware matters a lot less.

Urist-Green 3y ago
I suspect there is a higher level question at play stemming from the "deny" comments. Do you think Barracuda is uniquely vulnerable to these types of threats and, if not, would their competitors make similar efforts to recover?
veave 3y ago
If this is the mindset of some people it's no wonder that companies would rather deny the problem and stick their heads in the sand.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  The mindset that changing a system out has risks and that engineers/ops time is very expensive? I mean, I hear you, it sucks that being honest about the issue is leading to punishment, but rationally this is just how people are going to end up responding. If they really want to avoid this, don't give it to them for free, pay them for it.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    No it’s not. Considering changing vendors because a vendor did the right thing and sent out free replacements for potentially compromised hardware is not something any sane client would do.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      The GP didn't say that though. They said they were already considering replacing one vendor with another, prior to this incident. As I understood it, the calculus was 'do nothing and keep the current barracuda stuff for a while longer or find another vendor and replace the barracuda stuff?' Now the former option is gone, and the calculus is 'replace current barracuda stuff with barracuda or another vendor?' So if you were already considering switching vendors, now is an opportune time to do so. You're going to be paying the eng/ops cost now anyhow, and as many in this thread have pointed out, one or two fairly off-the-shelf hw appliances are not exactly a big spend.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        >You're going to be paying the eng/ops cost now anyhow, No you’re not. The people in this thread saying that have never actually managed technology because a vendor change that also requires a hardware swap is significantly more expensive than the drop in hardware swap. The only exception to this is if you were already in the middle of the transition and were planning to phase it out shortly anyway.
kortilla 3y ago
This notion is detached from reality. A drop-in replacement of the same thing is an order of magnitude less work than switching vendors. Even adequately researching alternatives, let alone doing some trial testing, will take far more time than a swap.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  They've already been researching alternatives.

phpisthebest 3y ago

the physical cost of the equipment is often the cheapest part of a deployment.