Pulse of Truth

1693 readers

45 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 2 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 […]

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Uri@infosec.pub 1 points 23 hours ago

I'm getting a "we know the best" vibe from signal.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are MANY alternatives to AWS. Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug...

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Has nothing to do with sunk cost, and more to do with there only being three hyper scaling cloud providers

[–] fartsparkles@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

You’re arguing with someone who hasn’t read the article…

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Three is more than one.

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Azure and GCP has less uptime than AWS. I guess you could roll with one of the Chinese providers like Alibaba Cloud or Tencent Cloud.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and how exactly is azure or google cloud better?

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 2 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 2 days ago

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

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 2 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.