Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shared404 | Hacker News Reader

Super cool looking, and a great idea.

> Get and self-host

This seems like it kind of defeats the purpose though. Is this section just to prove that it can be done?

edit: This was not meant to be rude. I was just asking if there is another reason. The reason I listed is more than enough, I was just wanting to learn more.

View on HN

Depends on the motivation to use - self-hosted option is of course bad for privacy, but still good for security - you could use a browser running on a separate machine, effectively making it a physically isolated sandbox

An excellent reason. I feel stupid now, I should've recognized that.

> self-hosted option is of course bad for privacy, but still good for security

there are plenty of anonymous hosting services out there in which case it would be exactly the opposite: "good for privacy, bad for security"

that's a valid point as well. This pretty much results in a privacy vs security choice, you either run it in infrastructure you fully control at the loss of privacy or some anonymous service, where you could have privacy but loosing the security. Although one could argue that using an anonymous hosting service, there's still a risk that whoever is running that infrastructure could monitor your activity meaning that effectively you have neither privacy nor security.

I don't think it defeats the purpose. It's not meant to make you anonymous, it's meant to shield your actual computer from exploits. It can do that just fine running on a VPS you rent.

Aaannnddd...

I now feel stupid. I should've realized that, I've definitely studied enough.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to my slow self.

I am slightly concerned that it's being advertised as security software, but the commit log looks incredibly... unpolished and uncared for, to say the least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com