Hacker News Reader

Comment by res0nat0r | Hacker News Reader

Everyone seems to think E2E encryption is needed everywhere (I know because the security guys at work think it is needed everywhere, even for everything inside a VPC), but even AWS here is advertising the fact that you don't need to do this:

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-tls-termination-for-net...

>Today we are simplifying the process of building secure web applications by giving you the ability to make use of TLS (Transport Layer Security) connections that terminate at a Network Load Balancer (you can think of TLS as providing the “S” in HTTPS). This will free your backend servers from the compute-intensive work of encrypting and decrypting all of your traffic, while also giving you a host of other features and benefits:

View on HN

If you trust Amazon to know your risk profile better than your security people, you have a management problem of some sort.

I trust myself who setup our infrastructure vs. the security guys who's automatic response to everything is deny all everywhere, encrypt everything everywhere (at rest encryption isn't enough, what can you do to get the db to work on the data encrypted internally 100% of the time?), and enable 2 factor on everything (the github gui has 2fa enabled, why aren't push/pull requests using 2fa?).

I think may main point is that kneejerk reactions to satisfy a security list checkbox are just as useless as a default "encrypt everything everywhere" stance must be better.

Sounds like you need better security people.

Agreed.

...Which sounds like a management problem.

Agreed.

...which, sadly, is true of many larger organizations: "security" ends up as just another middle management approval committee whose only job is to apply byzantine security checklists dreamed up by some Certified Security Architect (tm) way too late in the development process, right when it's hardest for product teams to reshuffle their entire architecture to comply, and with no consideration to the actual circumstances / risk profile of specific projects.

IMHO this should be viewed as a big, glaring anti-pattern, as it fundamentally puts security team goals at odds with product team goals.

but without tls amazon can "decrypt" your traffic and see whats inside. its one thing to have a backdoor inside a server that they rent to you that would have to be actively exploited and another to passively clone the traffic and analyze it in the name of making the service better.

Why do they have to actively exploit hardware/vms that they own? Isn't it pretty trivial for a hypervisor to "passively clone" data right out of the memory of the VM? Or to use management interfaces/custom peripherals to exfiltrate data if it were bare metal? AWS is kind of a black box to me but it seems hopeless to try to protect data from people that physically control the systems.

i was especially talking about passively mirroring/analysing network traffic. afak there is no easy and trivial way to "passively clone" aka dump memory of the hypervisor all the time without it being detectable in slowdowns and so on. my concern was not that i need to protect myself from amazon for the fear that they will hack my server, but to the way that they can get insight into my customers, maybe get a snippet of the data i get and so on.

we once saw this from some other company where they noticed we where talking to the competitors and wanted to talk.

If you believe that amazon are potentially an adversary, but you still want to host it on their servers, there is essentially nothing you can do to stop them getting at your data. At some point, to process the data, you have to do that unencrypted. That is an unpluggable achilles heel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com