this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
87 points (94.8% liked)

Selfhosted

39903 readers
463 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

haha

"the cloud" does not change the fact that if you data does not reside in 2 physical locations you do not have a backup.

so yes, standard practices that have existed... well, since the beginning, still apply.

[–] kristoff@infosec.pub 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, the issue here is that your backup may be physically in a different location (which you can ask to host your S3 backup storage in a different datacenter then the VMs), if the servers themselfs on which the service (VMs or S3) is hosted is managed by the same technical entity, then a ransomware attack on that company can affect both services.

So, get S3 storage for your backups from a completely different company?

I just wonder to what degree this will impact the bandwidth-usage of your VM if -say- you do a complete backup of your every day to a host that will be comsidered as "of-premises"

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

yeah, you can use another cloud provider as backup.. if you do it correctly.

personally, my disaster recovery plans dont include entire offsite VMs. i only care about data in a dr situation. so you send incremental daily backups offsite.

containers have made VMs even more irrelevant/ephemeral so focus on the data.

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I assume "data" includes your container configuration files in this strategy?

Those are pretty easy to store off site since they shouldn't change often.

[–] ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago

if you backup your vm data to the same provider as you run your vm on you don't have an 'off-site'-backup, which is one criteria of the 3-2-1 backup rule.