3 ms·

> To make sure that your connections can be snooped on over the LAN? Why is that a positive? No, to keep your app from having to deal with SSL. Internal netwo

> To make sure that your connections can be snooped on over the LAN? Why is that a positive? No, to keep your app from having to deal with SSL. Internal network security is an issue, but sites that need multi-server architectures can't really be passing SSL traffic through to the application servers anyway, because SSL hides stuff that's needed for the load balancers to do their jobs. Many websites need load balancers for performance, but are not important enough to bother with the threat model of an internal network compromise (whether it's on the site owner's own LAN, or a bare metal or VPS hosting vlan). > Sure, if you're at the scale where you want/need that then you're getting some benefit from that. But that's something you can add in when it makes sense. So why not preface your initial claims by saying you trust the web app to be secure enough to handle SSL keys, and a single instance of the app can handle all your traffic, and you don't need high availability in failure/restart cases? That would be a much better claim. It's still unlikely, because you don't control the internet. Putting your website behind Cloudflare buys you some decreased vigilance. A website that isn't too popular or attention-getting also reduces the risk. However, Russia and China exist (those are examples only, not an exclusive list of places malicious clients connect from).

lmm 2y ago
> So why not preface your initial claims by saying you trust the web app to be secure enough to handle SSL keys, and a single instance of the app can handle all your traffic, and you don't need high availability in failure/restart cases? Yeah, I phrased things badly, I was trying to push back on the idea that you should always put your app behind a load balancer even when it's a single instance on a single machine. Obviously there are use cases where a load balancer does add value. (I do think ordinary webapps should be able to gracefully reload/restart without losing connections, it really isn't so hard, someone just has to make the effort to code the feature in the library/framework and that's a one-off cost)

lmm 2y ago

> So why not preface your initial claims by saying you trust the web app to be secure enough to handle SSL keys, and a single instance of the app can handle all your traffic, and you don't need high availability in failure/restart cases? Yeah, I phrased things badly, I was trying to push back on the idea that you should always put your app behind a load balancer even when it's a single instance on a single machine. Obviously there are use cases where a load balancer does add value. (I do think ordinary webapps should be able to gracefully reload/restart without losing connections, it really isn't so hard, someone just has to make the effort to code the feature in the library/framework and that's a one-off cost)