On Sun, 20 May 2018 10:45:08 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 20:49:45 +0200 > Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> ha wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 May 2018 16:57:07 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message > > <[email protected]>: > > > > > On Sat, 19 May 2018 at 16:42:49 +0200 > > > Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:25:53 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message > > > > <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > >>> {headdesk} > > > >>> > > > >>> I really don't think it's that difficult to understand that > > > >>> avoiding outsourcing in no way precludes appropriate fallbacks > > > >>> and measures to eliminate SPoFs. I'm frankly quite puzzled > > > >>> that my mentioning (as an example) GitLab elicited the > > > >>> comment 'This wouldn't have helped [because] you need > > > >>> redundancy' -- when I nowhere suggested eschewing redundancy > > > >>> and when that open source project has a mountain of > > > >>> documentation on that very subject. And I'm puzzled a second > > > >>> time to see you ignore my having just pointed that out, as if > > > >>> I hadn't. > > > >> > > > >> You need redundancy in repository's admins, not on > > > >> infrastructure. > > > > > > > > ..you need both, IME. 17 years ago, I was the final lawful > > > > webmaster at fmb.no, our domain docs were stolen by > > > > https://www.frp.no/ people. > > > > > > Humm, how can infrastructure redundancy protect against document > > > stealth? > > > > ..theft, not stealth. Google those 2. ;o) > > > > > Infrastructure redundancy protects you against hardware > > > failure, not legal or bureaucratic events. > > > > ..that's your narrow view. Real infrastructure redundancy means > > setting up at least 2 fully independent web sites with at least > > 2 competing independent web hotels mirroring each other, > > Web hosts, not hotels. Google those 2. ;o) ..hosts, if you wanna do all the work yourself. Hotels, if you want money back on their failure to deliver 24/7/365 service. > > and feed > > them content over rsync, scp etc from a master server on e.g. a > > cell phone. > > As I already said, this does nothing against theft of documents or > the allegedly illegal transfer of an Internet domain name or hijack > of a DNS record. ..precisely why you want _full_ infrastructure redundancy, without any "single point of failure capable of bringing down everything." > > ..in our case, problem was time and funding to litigate the control > > of such legal or bureaucratic events. 4 hours before the "primary" > > ballot filing deadline, we were told we needed "5000 signatures" to > > file, truth is 500, we mobilized and got over 12,000 approved, > > despite having inch thick piles of signature sheets stolen from the > > 2 major Statoil gas stations south of Stavanger on Feb 28'th 2001. > > Infrastructure redundancy does not protect you against such events, > too. All of these events in fact involved non ICT infrastructures. ..full infrastructure redundancy helps, in our case we had a local radio station help us mobilize the ballot signatories. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
