Selfhosted

37782 readers

361 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

what if your cloud=provider gets hacked ? (www.bleepingcomputer.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/selfhosted

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi all,

As self-hosting is not just "home-hosting" I guess this post should also be on-topic here.

Beginning of the year, bleeping-computers published an interesting post on the biggest cybersecurity stories of 2023.

Item 13 is an interesing one. (see URL of this post). Summary in short A Danish cloud-provider gets hit by a ransomware attack, encrypting not only the clients data, but also the backups.

For a user, this means that a senario where, not only your VM becomes unusable (virtual disk-storage is encrypted), but also the daily backups you made to the cloud-provider S3-storage is useless, might be not as far-fetches then what your think.

So .. conclussion ??? If you have VMs at a cloud-provider and do daily backups, it might be usefull to actually get your storage for these backups from a different provider then the one where your house your VMs.

Anybody any ideas or remarks on this?

(*) https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/the-biggest-cybersecurity-and-cyberattack-stories-of-2023/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NAK 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.

Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.

Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.

Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you're accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.

The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.

Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you're looking for is disaster recovery.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Fair point.

On the other hand, most of the disaster senarios you mention are solved by geographic redundancy: set up your backup // DRS storage in a datacenter far away from the primary service. A scenario where all services,in all datacenters managed by a could-provider are impacted is probably new.

It is something that, considering the current geopolical situation we are now it, -and that I assume will only become worse- that we should better keep in the back of our mind.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

It should be obvious from the context here, but you don't just need geographic separation, you need "everything" separation. If you have all your data in the cloud, and you want disaster recovery capability, then you need at least two independent cloud providers.

load more comments (4 replies)