Pulse of Truth

1694 readers

101 users here now

Cyber Security news and links to cyber security stories that could make you go hmmm. The content is exactly as it is consumed through RSS feeds and wont be edited (except for the occasional encoding errors).

This community is automagically fed by an instance of Dittybopper.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

krogoth@infosec.pub

‘There isn’t really another choice:’ Signal chief explains why the encrypted messenger relies on AWS (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 days ago by lemmydev2@infosec.pub to c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After last week’s major Amazon Web Services (AWS) outage took Signal along with it, Elon Musk was quick to criticize the encrypted messaging app’s reliance on big tech. But Signal president Meredith Whittaker argues that the company didn’t have any other choice but to use AWS or another major cloud provider. “The problem here is […]

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

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Or how about using multiple to not have a single point of failure?

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

because they can barely keep the lights on with one provider. but I'm sure you will be a long-term signal backup subscriber, and until then you are regularly sending them donations.

https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/

[+] MotoAsh@piefed.social -9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

rofl how pathetic of a response. This is similar to the, "let's see you make better" from someone saying, "this food tastes like shit."

How is using multiple providers such a massive increase in expense? They'd be able to share the load, so it doesn't have to be a doubling of expense or even necessarily a significant increase in any universe what so ever.

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Because most prices are scaling down if you increase the use.

Buy 1 server -> pay 1 money units
Buy 100 servers -> pay 90 money units
Buy 10000 servers -> pay 8500 money units

If you decrease the bought amount and distribute it among multiple suppliers, you pay more, because you have multiple lower tier packages.

And I'm pretty sure they have at least a bit something like that, because while signal was slow, it didn't fail completely like other stuff.

And no the response wasn't pathetic, your misunderstanding of basic economics is, to stay in your aggressive style

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 3 days ago

Don't forget cost to develop on multiple platforms simultaneously. Triplication of vendor specific functionality

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Save some pennies to keep a single point of failure, then. I don't care if these shit services prove how inept they are.

It's not like they'd have to keep equal amounts in all zones. It's not like they'd have to have double the capacity. Your inability to imagine an economical solution without gross expenditure is... indeed, pathetic.

[–] Bo7a@piefed.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's okay to shut your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

lol! If you think it's impossible, you're yet again only proving how fucking pathetic and rather dim you are. Good job sucking dick for big tech.

Failover between servers isn't new. Failover between regions isn't new. Failover between services is BARELY a step past that.

Seriously, if you're too stupid to understand that, that is very much a YOU problem.