Self hosted alternatives
-
Why do you want to go to self hosted? You're potential failure domain is huge compared to hosted solutions. Granted if you don't care about the uptime, etc, you can do it cheaper.
If government issues are a concern... I'm not really sure that's a reason not to do it. Send your data to Europe, possible getting even more protection that you have in your home country.
You mentioned hosted. The assumption is that you're going to put this online, do you either a) think they are corrupt and will give away your data, or b) that you can provide better security yourself?
-
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
-
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
yes, but I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.
-
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
yes, but I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.
An intelligence agency with billions in funding designed to break into the digital warehouses of Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Whether by national security orders or breaking in digitally, they'll get in.
If you don't want these 3 letter agencies at your data. Don't have data with connectivity.
-
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
How does locally hosting protect you from that? Seems like you would be at an even bigger risk as your data would be targeted and at a known location.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
yes, but I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.
An intelligence agency with billions in funding designed to break into the digital warehouses of Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Whether by national security orders or breaking in digitally, they'll get in.
If you don't want these 3 letter agencies at your data. Don't have data with connectivity.
It's it @scottalanmiller who said that the NAS has admitted that Amazon has better security than they do? Or did I dream that?
-
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Breffni-Potter said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
yes, but I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.
An intelligence agency with billions in funding designed to break into the digital warehouses of Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Whether by national security orders or breaking in digitally, they'll get in.
If you don't want these 3 letter agencies at your data. Don't have data with connectivity.
It's it @scottalanmiller who said that the NAS has admitted that Amazon has better security than they do? Or did I dream that?
Not the NSA, but the former deputy director of the CIA.
-
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
Why do you want to go to self hosted? You're potential failure domain is huge compared to hosted solutions. Granted if you don't care about the uptime, etc, you can do it cheaper.
He was specifically asking for self-hosted alternatives in the first post and title. He also posted that he knows that there are non self hosted choices.
Plowing over the thread with this kind of response is just not helpful. If you want to have that discussion, you can 'Reply as Topic' and have your own discussion on the points of your concern.
-
@JaredBusch said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
Why do you want to go to self hosted? You're potential failure domain is huge compared to hosted solutions. Granted if you don't care about the uptime, etc, you can do it cheaper.
He was specifically asking for self-hosted alternatives in the first post and title. He also posted that he knows that there are non self hosted choices.
Plowing over the thread with this kind of response is just not helpful. If you want to have that discussion, you can 'Reply as Topic' and have your own discussion on the points of your concern.
Thanks @JaredBusch
My point was to see if any of us (if got the right situation- good bandwidth, better spec server) would be interested to move most of the things we have signed up with a third party to a self hosted setup. Reasons could be anything; not trusting the government, the provider, cost savings etc.
Security could be a concern, but I guess from what we already learnt we could may be minimize the risk or lock it down in such a way that it is accessible for only the users whom you give access.
Of course you need backup of these but even that is achievable, you can backup to a different locations.
-
@Ambarishrh said in Self hosted alternatives:
@JaredBusch said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
Why do you want to go to self hosted? You're potential failure domain is huge compared to hosted solutions. Granted if you don't care about the uptime, etc, you can do it cheaper.
He was specifically asking for self-hosted alternatives in the first post and title. He also posted that he knows that there are non self hosted choices.
Plowing over the thread with this kind of response is just not helpful. If you want to have that discussion, you can 'Reply as Topic' and have your own discussion on the points of your concern.
Plowing over? I think not, I was inquiring why he wanted to go self-hosted, as you quoted. He was looking for alternatives - but the reason for those alternatives are important to the discussion. I specifically left room in my quoted comment that cheaper could be done, but unless that is the primary goal, the reasons for self-hosted have mostly been shot down in this thread.
Thanks @JaredBusch
My point was to see if any of us (if got the right situation- good bandwidth, better spec server) would be interested to move most of the things we have signed up with a third party to a self hosted setup. Reasons could be anything; not trusting the government, the provider, cost savings etc.
Security could be a concern, but I guess from what we already learnt we could may be minimize the risk or lock it down in such a way that it is accessible for only the users whom you give access.
Good bandwidth, better spec server? Better than a DC you rent VPS from? Sure it's possible, but will also cost a fortune.
We've already discussed how the security is better in a well known cloud provider instead of on your own servers in your own DC. -
Good bandwidth, better spec server? Better than a DC you rent VPS from? Sure it's possible, but will also cost a fortune.
We've already discussed how the security is better in a well-known cloud provider instead of on your own servers in your own DC.Could you please share the link to that post?
-
@Ambarishrh said in Self hosted alternatives:
Good bandwidth, better spec server? Better than a DC you rent VPS from? Sure it's possible, but will also cost a fortune.
We've already discussed how the security is better in a well-known cloud provider instead of on your own servers in your own DC.Could you please share the link to that post?
@scottalanmiller do you know what threads those were?
The gist is that Amazon, MS and Google have teams of people working on security, it's extremely unlikely that a single person, or even a small team could come up with equal, let alone better solutions.
Also, just hacking one of those services doesn't ensure direct to your data access. They now have to surf through a nearly insurmountable amount of data in the hopes of finding your data. Of course, you are the weak link in either system, be it bad passwords, phishing attacks, etc -
@Dashrender said
It's it @scottalanmiller who said that the NAS has admitted that Amazon has better security than they do? Or did I dream that?
If you are a burgaler looking to steal something, of course you are going to make that statement that you cannot break into a particular area. People will move their valuables into that area and whoops, the thieves have them.
Government sponsored, highly motivated, extremely dangerous combined with serious levels of funding burglars.
-
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Breffni-Potter said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said in Self hosted alternatives:
@travisdh1 said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender Remember Snowden, and how well government secures things.
yes, but I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.
An intelligence agency with billions in funding designed to break into the digital warehouses of Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Whether by national security orders or breaking in digitally, they'll get in.
If you don't want these 3 letter agencies at your data. Don't have data with connectivity.
It's it @scottalanmiller who said that the NAS has admitted that Amazon has better security than they do? Or did I dream that?
CIA. And the statement was "better than anyone."
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Self hosted alternatives:
@Dashrender said
It's it @scottalanmiller who said that the NAS has admitted that Amazon has better security than they do? Or did I dream that?
If you are a burgaler looking to steal something, of course you are going to make that statement that you cannot break into a particular area. People will move their valuables into that area and whoops, the thieves have them.
Government sponsored, highly motivated, extremely dangerous combined with serious levels of funding burglars.
But it's where the government moves its stuff. It's not what they tell the public, it's what they do to protect themselves from the public.
