3 ms·
Other siblings have piled on this, but let me just add: Your source of truth for a static site will never be the deployed contents of the server (even if you d
by eslaught 2y ago
Other siblings have piled on this, but let me just add:
Your source of truth for a static site will never be the deployed contents of the server (even if you do go that route). It will be your local Git repo or possibly your upstream Git forge.
Even in the rare case that such a simple case gets you hacked, you can throw away your entire setup and start over quite easily. Whereas all of the Wordpress/Drupal/etc/etc. options I'm aware of will require you to do your own database backups, if you are self-hosting, or else you are simply hosed (as the attacker could corrupt or erase the source of truth).
If you are with a hosted solution then obviously your security (and backups) will be as good as their security/backups, and all of this will be moot except for pricing.
- prepend 2y agoI understand all this. I didn’t say that static sites are easy to hack or valuable, I responded to GP’s claim “They cannot be hacked” I think static sites are a good technique that has vastly improved security over dynamic sites, but thinking that using them makes you invincible is faulty.
- philistine 2y agoIf it makes you as vulnerable as S3, that's as close to invincible as you're going to get.
- prepend 2y agoDepends on where you host.
- philistine 2y agoThe whole website is on Amazon S3, that's where you host it!
- prepend 2y agoI host dozens of static sites, none of them run on s3.