Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Where Are the Complete Hosting Providers?

Kludge writes "In 2000 there were thousands of email/web hosting businesses. In 2013 not much has changed. To get my email/web/webmail/domain/VOIP/public-key/XMPP/VPN hosting I have to deal with five different service providers. Where are the complete hosting providers? The absence of competition in this area drives many to Google, making data siphoning easy for the NSA. Why has hosting not advanced in the last 10 years? Where are the hosting providers that make end-to-end encrypted email/web/VOIP/XMPP easy and automatic for all my clients?"

53 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Managed servers by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think probably what's happening is that it's cost-prohibitive for a provider to train their staff to maintain all of the different packages that would be required to offer such a service, and a provider that offers VoIP generally has to have more quite a bit more infrastructure in place to offer any kind of reasonable service. The closest thing to what the submitter is asking for is probably a managed server provider, and there's no shortage of those out there, at varying quality/price points.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    1. Re:Managed servers by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The closest thing to what the submitter is asking for is probably a managed server provider, and there's no shortage of those out there, at varying quality/price points.

      Yes..... I think the poster is asking Where's the place I can get all those things together in high quality at a commodity price?

      In other words.... Where can I purchase a car with all the amenities of the high end Rolls-Royce, for the price of a Civic?

    2. Re:Managed servers by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In other words.... Where can I purchase a car with all the amenities of the high end Rolls-Royce, for the price of a Civic?

      You steal the Rolls-Royce. Hundreds of millions of computers right now are part of one kind of botnet or another because botnets offer everything the poster is looking for. There are websites out there where you can purchase the resources of the botnet for cheap; Just gotta know where to look. As a bonus, they also offer a degree of anonymity and resistance to the kind of tracking the author is apparently worried about. If you want to be resistant to a search and seizure by a government, I can think of few things better than a massively decentralized, worldwide network with millions of potential servers to shift your data around within.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. Shameless plug. by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a senior engineer at FireHost, and we can provide managed infrastructure and installation assistance for the things you've listed, complete with managed SSL VPN access for all your employees.

    Again, this is an admittedly shameless plug, but it does answer the question.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
    1. Re:Shameless plug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The submitter implied Google was not suitable with the remark "making data siphoning easy for the NSA".

      How is FireHost significantly less vulnerable to the NSA when "The Letter" arrives? From what I see FireHost has significant infrastructure in USA, a CEO with US ties, many employees living in the USA.

      If the NSA is not a worry to the asker, then there are many solutions, FireHost possibly being one of them. If the NSA is an issue then it becomes trickier...

    2. Re:Shameless plug. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      it's not.

      what the submitter would actually need would be a service that would make people encrypt the mail coming to him using his public key and that the private key wouldn't be anywhere except his system. which of course makes any totally hosted solutions frankly useless and I don't see how his host could force his contacts to encrypt by using his private key BEFORE they send the mail to the service provider.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Shameless plug. by beaverdownunder · · Score: 2

      The submitter implied Google was not suitable with the remark "making data siphoning easy for the NSA".

      How is FireHost significantly less vulnerable to the NSA when "The Letter" arrives? From what I see FireHost has significant infrastructure in USA, a CEO with US ties, many employees living in the USA.

      If the NSA is not a worry to the asker, then there are many solutions, FireHost possibly being one of them. If the NSA is an issue then it becomes trickier...

      Yeah, exactly. I'm not sure why this was modded troll, or offtopic, or whatever -- it's on topic and not trolling (unless you work for the FireHost mob, then you'd probably think it is...)

    4. Re:Shameless plug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the FBI that shows up with the NSL in the US. In every other country the same thing happens. IOW, you're all fucking retards for thinking an offshore hosting provider is going to be any different.

  3. Re:WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    My experience is that my ISP are nice to supply me a phone and broadband, with .. tada! email. Then further down the line I have issues witht their email service, and get told it is "not a business priority". Nevermind, VPN, and more advanced services. Repeat this scenario x1000 acrosss the majority of ISPs. And if you find one offering all the goodies, they more than likely don't service your area.

  4. Get a server. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go to any one of many providers that offer general purpose computers, and get one, virtual or physical. Then go to what ever software provider provides the OS and packages you need and get that. Then combine their powers for a remote arbitrary computing system.

    Alan Turing came up with the great idea of a universal computer that could to what ever you need. Its a pretty good approach to this problem.

  5. You want all your eggs in one basket? by toygeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't. Few hosts have the brains and manpower to handle that many services at once. Pick the best for each one, and be glad that they're the best. Besides, if their data center is DDOS'd, you want all your services going down at once? Likely not.

    1. Re:You want all your eggs in one basket? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Why would you host your critical infrastructure on any hosting provider that has only one datacenter? If your stuff can't go down, you need to have it designed to work in a distributed manner and hosted in more than one physical facility. This costs more money, though.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
  6. Re:Ummm by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Informative

    I agree TFA has it wrong - there is a lot of competition going on all the time and the large amount of services that exists are good for most of us.

    I can only guess that the writer of the TFA is lazy and not willing to search for the best suitable alternative. And if you want an all-in-one solution set up your own server.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  7. Re:NSA? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do you think the NSA snoops on Non-US traffic more than it snoops on US traffic?
    Really?
    Frankly, if you are sending e-mail in the clear (and, unless YOU encrypt it - you are) - it is like mailing post cards from your holiday trips and expecting no one to look at the back of them.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  8. Moar tin foil! by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...making data siphoning easy for the NSA.

    I have gotten incredibly sick of the tin foil hat brigade putting the NSA into every one of their conspiracy theories, and equally tired of the idiot replacement editors from Dice rubber-stamping submissions like this that even most bloggers wouldn't post. You wanna talk about hosting providers? Okay, let's talk. Obviously you are concerned about your data being intercepted and stolen.

    Do you guys honestly think, for one second, that you can hide from these guys if they really want you? Any of you? This is the largest, most powerful government on the planet, with resources you could only dream of. Even businesses the size of Google can't keep them out; And if you believe any press releases to the contrary, you're an idiot.

    The only way you're keeping your data safe is in a physically secured facility, with the computer locked in a faraday cage and with no access to the internet. Just about anything else and the data will be vulnerable at some point to a legal intercept of it. You can manage those risks, limit them, but ultimately, if they want it they're gonna get it.

    So please guys, stop asking for NSA-proof [insert thing here]. There are only two defenses when your opponent has a half trillion dollar budget and you got twenty bucks and a cracker; Anonymity (ie, don't get on the radar), or don't do anything that would be interesting to them... or if you must, for the love of fuck, minimize your electronic footprint. Forget the credit card, the cell phone, the wifi-enabled anything. Go off grid, stand in the woods in the middle of nowhere, and then do whatever it is you're keen on doing without the government being aware of it.

    There are no high tech solutions to this that are within your budget, ok? Just... deal with it already guys.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Moar tin foil! by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So no.. I will not just 'deal with it', that is completely the wrong attitude. We DO NOT have to deal with it, we will not deal with it. It will be stopped, eventually.

      Excuse me... I didn't say just roll over and take it. But trying to solve a social problem like this with technology is the very height of stupidity. It's like saying if we take away everyone's guns, we'll solve that pesky violence problem. The gun is just the tool. Just like the internet. Just like a cell phone, a camera, a packet sniffer, a data center... all of these things that the NSA uses are not the problem! It's the people that are the problem, and the people alone.

      People problems can only be solved by people. I know that seems like a stupidly obvious thing to say, but it's clear to me that when article after article posted is variations of the question "What technology can I use to stop the NSA from spying on me?" There isn't any! You stop the NSA by getting off your ass and participating in the democratic process. You cannot fix this by keyboard warrioring.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Moar tin foil! by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep. When I was a kid nobody* had a computer. Then for a while people had computers but little or no connectivity. Then everybody had a computer and fast connectivity.

      During the sneakernet era you had computing ability, but if they wanted your data they'd have to get a warrant or ransack your office illegally.

      If keeping things away from the NSA is that important, go all 1980s on your selves. It really wasn't such a bad time for most of us. Swapping floppies in person was actually kind of fun. There were no government agents at swap meets.... that I know of, LOL.

      *The term "nobody" means no ordinary middle class household or small business. Yes, I know NASA and big companies had computers when I was a kid. "Nobody" is being used in the loose, colloquial sense here. The standard disclaimer about not inferring the ridiculous also applies. This includes casting a loose net over the definition of computer so as to include devices such as the abacus, or employees with "computer" as their job title and mocking me for implying that I'm older than written history. The standard disclaimer also applies to the text of the standard disclaimer.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Moar tin foil! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      During the sneakernet era you had computing ability, but if they wanted your data they'd have to get a warrant or ransack your office illegally.

      Neither of which you'd necessarily be informed of. There's two ways to approach security; tamper-evident, and tamper-resistant. Everyone is focusing on tamper-resistant right now to deal with the NSA; "How do we stop them?" ... Have you noticed nobody is asking the question; How do we detect them? Sneakernet also had the benefit of being tamper-evident... if they broke down your door, you'd come home to a broken door. It'd be pretty obvious that something was up. Legal or illegal, when you physically search a property, you leave evidence behind that you did so. However, much of the technology the NSA is using doesn't leave any proverbial fingerprints behind.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Moar tin foil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's the people that are the problem, and the people alone...People problems can only be solved by people. "
      Nah, end to end encryption, your fluffy nonsense is meaningless.

      You're trying to convince a lot of IT professionals, who know damn well that its technically possible to secure communications end to end, that they are powerless to do what they know they can do.

      It's just short notice, we thought we lived in a system of rules that protected our privacy, we thought TLS worked and so on, stupidly thinking there were warrants and judicial courts and so on. Silly us! No matter, it's a bug. We need to switch to end to end encryption to fix it.

      "You cannot fix this by keyboard warrioring."
      Well I bow to your superior knowledge and will immediately stop writing this Thunderbird OTR add on and step away from my keyboard.

    5. Re:Moar tin foil! by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're trying to convince a lot of IT professionals, who know damn well that its technically possible to secure communications end to end, that they are powerless to do what they know they can do.

      No, I'm merely suggesting that locking those IT professionals in a room and beating them with a metal pipe, is an effective method of "unsecuring" those communications. It's only in the imagination of Anonymous Cowards and hollywood screen-writers that the police kick in the door, seize the computer, and then say "Oh shit! He's using a 8192 bit encryption key. We'll never recover the data! I guess we better just leave then, defeated."

      It's just short notice, we thought we lived in a system of rules that protected our privacy, we thought TLS worked and so on, stupidly thinking there were warrants and judicial courts and so on. Silly us! No matter, it's a bug. We need to switch to end to end encryption to fix it.

      The people who designed these systems, those venerated IT professionals you mentioned earlier? Yeah, they knew from day one that TLS, SSL, certificate authorities, etc., were not truly secure. They were a compromise that provided "reasonable" security -- and it still does do that. Millions of internet-based financial transactions are secured using SSL, TLS, etc., every day and are not compromised. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. Is it a decent one? Sortof.

      But fundamentally, you're asking for the impossible with your "end to end" encryption non-sense. The very first in a long list of problems is: How do you securely exchange keys with an entity you have no prior relationship with? How does Alice know she's talking to Bob, if she has never met Bob before? The solution that TLS/SSL used was certificate authorities; A trusted third party that both Bob and Alice trust. Unfortunately, like any trust model, it is only as strong as the weakest link, and as certificate authorities proliferated... rogue CAs and stolen keys became a very real threat.

      But simply switching the protocols around won't solve the very first problem: How do you securely exchange keys over what is, inherently, an insecure medium? You can't.

      Well I bow to your superior knowledge and will immediately stop writing this Thunderbird OTR add on and step away from my keyboard.

      First, yes, I do have superior knowledge (obviously). And I'm willing to put my reputation on the line by not posting anonymously. This frequently comes back to bite me in the ass, especially when dealing with Anonymous Cowards, but karma is not as important to me as getting as accurate of information as possible in front of as many eyeballs as possible. If a few -1, Troll mods is the price I pay, I do so gladly. Second, Thunderbird has an OpenPGP addon... developing another addon is silly, and frankly, you and I both know you lack the chops to actually program.

      But regardless, if I'm going to get serious about personal privacy, I'm not going to do it by sitting down to write my own crypto addon. For one, it would almost certainly be more buggy than the ones that have been reviewed and certified as correctly implimented by crytologists... and crypto is amazingly easy to get wrong, and devilishly difficult for someone without loads of experience to detect the failure. For two... why would I spend hundreds of hours doing that, when I can spend dozens of hours making phone calls and writing letters to the people who have far, far more power than I do, and convince others to do the same?

      I'm sorry, but looking at my large list of tools available to me, the one labelled "Democracy" seems far more likely to get me what I want than one labelled "Amateur Crypto".

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Moar tin foil! by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Do you guys honestly think, for one second, that you can hide from these guys if they really want you?

      (...)

      Just about anything else and the data will be vulnerable at some point to a legal intercept of it.

      .

      What the NSA is doing, is outside the scope of the judiciary. Whether legal or not I don't want to discuss here, they do not use the judiciary to get warrants and all the proper stuff.

      Yes if they REALLY target YOU, there is not much hiding going on. But face it, they don't really target many people specifically. They try to get as much data as they can get their hands on, and there are plenty of often simple ways for us to make it a lot harder and more expensive for them. There is no reason to not use those options.

      Encrypting data is one. Then a simple wiretap doesn't do the job any more, they need to get direct access to a server that stores your data unencrypted. Make sure such a server is out of the USA, and not managed by a US company (i.e. not the Japanese-based servers of Amazon). Those two make it a lot harder for the NSA to get their hands on your data.

      That should help keeping a lot of your data out of their dragnet. If they really want to target you, and put dedicated manpower to hack your server or go via the judiciary (hte latter of course unlikely) then of course you don't stand too much of a chance. But that doesn't mean you should just let them do what they want to do. Strong encryption is cheap and easy nowadays, and not too hard to set up securely.

    7. Re:Moar tin foil! by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need to stop them, you just need to make their life too difficult for it to be worth chasing you when you've got nothing worth chasing for.

      The more people that do this the more it eats into NSA resources, if you force a real person into the loop to decide if you're worth chasing then you really cause a massively disproportionate impact on the NSA's resources compared to if you just let them farm your data automatically from unencrypted services they have a tap on like Google.

      Then eventually when things like the Boston bombings keep happening despite the NSA has a mass of financing from the US government behind it and taps on most the world someone in congress is finally going to have to ask "What the fuck is the point in all this expenditure?" and the plug is going to get pulled.

      If the NSA ends up chasing, expensively, because of the cost of intervention of human resources, people who are entirely irrelevant and innocent of everything, then eventually they're going to have to change tact. Eventually they're going to have to realise that universal snooping is ineffective and just makes it even harder to tell who really is and isn't a threat. They'll have to go back to what they should be doing in the first place - focusing on the hard work of identifying real actual threats rather than hoping a mass computer network will somehow figure that out for them, something the Boston case showed it absolutely can't.

    8. Re:Moar tin foil! by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you guys honestly think, for one second, that you can hide from these guys if they really want you? Any of you?

      The qualifier is "if they really want you".

      You can't hide from the NSA unless you're a government entity yourself. If I were to head the Iran nuclear program, I'd give it a try.

      However, you can hide from the NSA dragnet, because it's not targetting you specifically.
      So if you use any of the big e-mail providers, you can be 100% certain that a backup copy of all your e-mails exists somewhere in an NSA database. But if you run your own mailserver, the mails that you exchange over encrypted channels with someone else who also does that have a chance of not being caught by the net, not because they couldn't, but because the world is huge and even the vast NSA resources are limited.

      The problem with the submitters concept is that as long as you roll your own, you can slip through the net (but never count on it, it's a probability like all things in IT security). But as soon as someone sets up a "secure hosting provider", he'll become a target. And the bigger it gets, the higher the chance that the NSA will expand some resources to penetrate it.

      So it's not a viable business concept, and thus it doesn't exist. Of course, someone will make the claims, because scam is always a viable business concept.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:Moar tin foil! by Pav · · Score: 2

      Rubbish...

      ALL avenues should be persued. Yes... Go democracy! BUT the crypto experts should still sharpen their toolkits, the average I.T peon should sharpen their crypto knowledge and the average citizen should engage in some crypto arse covering even if it's 98% ineffective (and I hardly think it would be as bad as that). This NSA bruhaha is as good a motivation as any. . Also I think it's good practice to assume a very well funded and skilled adversary who is everywhere. Don't call them the NSA if that disturbs you... perhaps you might prefer to call this adversary "Chaos" (the name of the evil organisation from Get Smart).

    10. Re:Moar tin foil! by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2

      I have gotten incredibly sick of the tin foil hat brigade putting the NSA into every one of their conspiracy theories

      If at this point, you still believe the NSA collecting private data is tin foil hat territory, I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. However, I'll assume you didn't actually mean that for purposes of the rest of the post.

      Obviously you are concerned about your data being intercepted and stolen. Do you guys honestly think, for one second, that you can hide from these guys if they really want you?

      OK, this statement really points that you aren't involved in information security (at least in a serious capacity anyway). Do you really guarantee you can hide from Anonymous or even script kiddies 100% of the time if they really want you? If you answer yes, then again we know you aren't involved in information security. So since the answer is no, what is your solution? Do you simply throw your hands in the air and say screw it? I cannot guarantee to stop them anyway, so lets just toss our firewall and anti-virus in the trash? No of course not. Heck even your sarcastic comment about a physically secured facility, in a faraday cage, with no internet access cannot promise the information will be secure. A simple warrant, guys with guns, breaking down your door and taking the server easily gets around that.

      Information security is about risk mitigation. What can you reasonably and responsibly do to ensure the security of your client information? It isn't about guaranteeing 100% security as that is simply not possible (NSA or not). So there standard industry best practices to mitigate against risks even though that doesn't completely remove all risks. Such things include encryption, firewalls, anti-virus, IPS, DLP, etc, etc. Even if you do all of those things and more, that cannot promise 100% safety, but it does represent you doing your best to protect your clients data and not just tossing your hands in the air and saying screw it.

      This NSA (I use that as they are the largest, but mean it to encompass every alphabet agency from every country) threat isn't new obviously, but the scope and visibility of it is obviously much more obvious than ever. Thus responsible IT professionals will be talking about how best to responsibly do their jobs in this regard for quite some time. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is a good thing. New best practices on how to combat and mitigate these risks will come from such discussions. There will never be a 100% fix, but these discussions will lead to solutions that help. Those of us who take our clients information security serious obviously love these discussions. I'm sorry for you (really more for your clients) if you don't want to hear about this, but it isn't going anywhere.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    11. Re:Moar tin foil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I'm willing to put my reputation on the line by not posting anonymously.

      Post using your actual name, then.

  9. Re:NSA? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    At this point, I think -any- thing surging over the internet is unsafe unless encrypted (and at this point, excessively). I don't trust ANYONE, US or non-US to keep their hands off my packets.

  10. You are not paying attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone who believes that "Not much has changed" in webhosting the past 13 years is not paying attention. There has been *massive* consolidation and times are so rough for the small providers that we've gotten real good at having multiple legs to stand on.

    Where I work, we now provide a number of different services as the age-old web+email+etc stuff is rapidly going the way of the dodo. Most people who want "the full package" also tend to have very specific needs and are better served with a VPS or dedicated server and even this market is strongly consolidating.

  11. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hostgator... was purchased by EIG a while back (joining ranks with Bluehost, among others). It's just all that much worse now. While the support provided by Hostgator was generally adequate even in relatively recent history, forced migrations and a slew of bone-headed business decisions were made... and now their support staff is generally tied up coping with the after effects. They could have easily vanished into "The Cloud", but there is something to be said for dedicated hardware. When you sell support as a service (a full staff of dedicated support admins cost more money than one might think), you need to make sure your _product_ isn't being contaminated by the doings of the factory. Indeed, these hosting models are steadily approaching the brink of experiencing natural selection first hand.

  12. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe they are asking the wrong question.

    Any CPanel install has a lot of that stuff in it (I won't say all because I hate CPanel/WHM and it needs to die a horrible death for the amount of extra manual work needed to prevent it from shooting itself)

    The real question is "why am I looking for someone else to provide this when I can just do it myself?", the passive aggressive version of "everyone who offers this is too expensive."

  13. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by pspahn · · Score: 2

    I think not just consolidation, but specialization as well.

    I've plugged them before because they've been great, but the main reason I decided on hosting with a company called Nexcess is because they fine-tune their hardware to run the Magento platform. For those not aware, Magento in its infancy was known to be such a terrible resource hog. Horror stories of people trying to run it on cheap shared hosting. To an extent, those horror stories still happen, but there have been some niche hosting providers that saw an opportunity to differentiate themselves and did.

    When I have to get in touch with their support, they not only know their own hardware, they know the platform I am using. Having that specialized knowledge available was a godsend before we had the resources of Stackoverflow or the Magento SO beta site (not to mention my own knowledge that has grown about developing on Magento in the last five years).

    The specialization is great in so many ways, but I think one of the drawbacks is you have less broad-scoped knowledge, and it just ends up as a bunch of so-so quality services instead of getting high-quality services from seperate providers.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  14. Re:Yeh, it's not like the NSA by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    So why *does* the NSA do that?

    Because it's easier to store all the data now, and only access and analyze it when traditional investigative techniques identify a potential threat. It also eliminates the time wasted once a potential threat is identified going back and trying to reconstruct/recover/access data from many different sources. In other words, it saves time and resources; A counter-intuitive conclusion, given that most people look only at the costs and implications of gathering and storing all that data, but not very much on what happens after.

    Nah, just arrest every hacker you find and don't give hackers 0 day exploits and you'll fix a lot of problems.

    I'd prefer a world where people were only arrested when they've actually committed a crime, or there's strong evidence that they intend to. Mere capability is not sufficient to justify an arrest. At best, a knock on the door and "Can we come in and ask a few questions?" At best.

    Don't you think we shouldn't *have* to ask? It's written into the constitution and the EU privacy right.

    Actually, it isn't. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. And as far as the EU; They are a sovereign foreign power. The NSA has not just the mandate, but an obligation, to monitor foreign threats; Allies can become enemies, and when surveillance is pervasive and shared, it keeps everyone a bit more honest. And when it comes to international politics... dishonesty and rhetoric are pretty much the order of the day for everyone, allies or enemies.

    What do we need to do to get the NSA to read the constitution, send it in an encrypted email to our kids?

    There was an article not very long ago about a book published by someone who spent a considerable period of time investigating the culture of the NSA. His takeaway was that they do respect the Constitution. They also want to ensure as few Americans as possible become a part of some terrorist's political statement. Balancing these two goals is not so easy or cut and dry as internet pundits say.

    "There are no high tech solutions to this that are within your budget, ok? Just... deal with it already guys."

    Hah! you wish.

    Actually, I do. I am not overly concerned with the NSA reading my e-mail or even keeping a file on me. It will not adversely impact my life in any meaningful way. As long as it continues to not affect me, surveil away. I am far, far more concerned with commercial interests accessing and misusing my data; There is little legal recourse to such activities, and it is readily apparent to me that no matter how unethical people claim the NSA to be, corporations are several orders of magnitude worse in almost every measure.

    But unlike the NSA, I believe we can, with the budget and resources available to the average person, mount effective defenses against those corporations. And I would rather people start taking the threat corporations pose seriously, instead of pointing to the NSA like (a) they're the biggest problem and/or (b) we can honestly hope to accomplish anything against them.

    Ultimately, it's a question of practicality. I simply don't believe that I can defend against an organization with half a trillion dollars in assets and an operating budget bigger than that of the majority of the countries on the planet. But by happy coincidence, I do not feel they are a threat to me in any meaningful way.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  15. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What actually is a complete hosting provider?

    I don't get the question in the summary. It sounds like the guy is asking for a host he can pay that will automatically set up some arbitrary services that he's decided constitute "complete hosting"?

    I don't really see how an ISP can cater to such an arbitrary definition when there's literally millions of different services an ISP could be expected to provide.

    Isn't the solution just to get your own VPS or dedicated server and just install everything you want on it or am I missing something here?

    Is there some defintion of "Complete Hosting Provider" whereby said provider to conform must provide the services the summary is asking for even though it's a rather obscure combination of things to provide on one host?

    From what I can fathom the answer to the question is: "You are not the only person on the internet, different people have different use cases, no ISP could possibly cater to ever combination people may want, nor would they probably want to because it would require having experts in each of those millions of technologies to manage them all hence why they stick to their areas of expertise or provide you a blank server you can install whatever the hell you want to on". Unless there is some definition of "Complete Hosting" that encompasses only a fringe handful of available services then I can't see this changing.

  16. I don't use providers HQ in the USA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The absence of competition in this area drives many to Google, making data siphoning easy for the NSA.

    For me, I do not use any provider that has their HQ inside the United States of America.

    And ... in order to retard NSA's snooping in my traffic, I deploy SSL forward secrecy on my sites.

    Anyone who wants to know about forward secrecy please visit https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2013/06/25/ssl-labs-deploying-forward-secrecy to get more info

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For me, I do not use any provider that has their HQ inside the United States of America.

      And ... in order to retard NSA's snooping in my traffic, I deploy SSL forward secrecy on my sites.

      Ditto. We are not a shop with ultra-high security requirements (in that case we would roll own our servers), but in current world situation, it is too high risk for us to host anything in USA. We have pulled out our data infrastructure from there.

    2. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by loxfinger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, because the reach of US surveillance stops dead at the border.

    3. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US surveillance still drops tremendously at the border.

    4. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And none of the other nations ever spy on anyone.

      This is not to defend or excuse the actions of the NSA, but if you believe you are safe from having your data intercepted from intelligence agencies just because you are using a service based out of a nation that is Not-The-USA, then you are living in a fools paradise. The technology is too ubiquitous and too effective for the spooks /not/ to use, and the main difference between the NSA and foreign intelligence agencies is that the NSA got caught at it.

      Well, that and the NSA tries to take the high moral ground and insists its not only legal but also something most Americans support. That's some Goebbels-level hypocrisy there. At least the DGSE, BND and GCHQ aren't making loud proclamations as to their righteousness (they are wisely keeping their heads down).

      Don't depend on the good behavior of the local intelligence agency. Instead, use proper security practices to make it either impossible or not cost-effective to break into your data stream.

    5. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by blackest_k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While there are many agencies around who could be monitoring what I do, I'm pretty sure its the NSA who does it as a matter of routine to everyone.

      I'm in no doubt that other agencies could spy on me but i'm pretty certain they can't justify the expense.

    6. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      The one thing the NSA has that other countries largely don't: a fleet of submarines with cable tapping abilities and a bunch of com intercept sats in orbit. So if your traffic crosses an ocean at any point chances are it's tapped.

      This ain't new shit either. The US was doing this to the soviet union back in the cold war 30 years ago. Blind Man's Bluff...good book if you want to read about it.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    7. Re:I don't use providers HQ in the USA by coolsnowmen · · Score: 2

      The difference is that Switzerland has no ability to jail me for browsing things on the internet, while I'm sure the my [US] government could find a reason to if they looked hard enough.

  17. there are solutions op hasnt considered. by nimbius · · Score: 2

    to break this down:
    email/web/webmail/domain/:dreamhost.com does all this, as do most hosting providers, already. shared, VPS and dedicated hosting packages have existed for a decade or more.

    VOIP: is available as an asterisk appliance or a product you can buy and have serviced locally. why? because 75% of VoIP is the network. where to place PBX's, gateways, and how they interface with things like fax and voicemail are all critical things that cant just be boxed up and sold off a website like wordpress.
    public-key: ssh-keygen i guess? do you mean SSL certificates? because thats covered by every major hosting provider. GoDaddy runs an authority, the rest just outsource it as part of their panel offerings.
    XMPP: Dreamhost.
    VPN: slashdot resurrects VPN as a feature of cryptography on the regular, and if you check some of the articles we're all greatly in favour of creating our own keys for this, salting them appropriately, and generally keeping pretty strict control over them. that having been said, if the idea of running your own open source router is a bit too much to handle there are probably 50 companies that will sell you a product like fortigate or juniper which are more than capable of VPN tunnels. outsource your 2-factor auth to yubikey.

    full disclosure: I was a dreamhost admin for a while. they offer great service and products, and generally resist any request for information without a warrant. they fought back against SOPA, continue to fight against PIPA and generally run a pretty tight ship.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  18. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Squash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the owner of a hosting company, that's the same impression that i got. He's asking for a grouping of products that don't naturally group together. When people think of hosting, they think of web, mail, and dns. They generally don't think of VoIP, VPN, or XMPP, or whatever the submitter expects to receive when he asks for "public key" service. It's nonsense.

    --
    Squash
  19. Re:Ummm by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree TFA has it wrong - there is a lot of competition going on all the time and the large amount of services that exists are good for most of us.

    Plenty of competition in marginal profit realms leads to a string of failed startups. How do you know the provider you choose is going to last?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  20. The answer is in the post. by Kludge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What actually is a complete hosting provider?

    A close example is Google. Google provides email, web, webmail, domain, XMPP, VOIP, all available from a single gmail login and manageable from a web interface.
    No, I do not want to just rent a server from someone else, and set up and manage all this stuff myself. I want to pay for it, but I would like some competition, I do not like to send everyone to Google.
    I realize that not every client will need or want all these services when I first set them up. Some clients will only use half the services ever. But having them easily accessible to the customer from a single provider if/when they need them has real value.

    1. Re:The answer is in the post. by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But what happens when a client wants half those services plus some others that aren't supported?

      What services exactly do you deem to fulfil the criteria of being complete? What if someone wants an IRC server instead of XMPP?

      If you really mean what you say then you can pay for it, if you don't want to set it up yourself you can hire someone to do all that for you and provide the arbitrary set of services and develop the bespoke software you need to integrate it all.

      But what you're really saying in essence is "I want a bespoke easily managed server setup with integrated login, but I don't want to set it up myself and I don't want to pay enough for someone else to do it, I want it to be free like Google, or cheap". This isn't practical, Google can only offer what it does because it has a massive data mining operation and ad farm sat behind that to monetise it.

      Contrary to your assertion otherwise, there is competition too, there's Microsoft with it's Office 365, Outlook.com and Skype offering but again they can only offer it because they have a massive amount of resources to do so and can monetise it through ads and data mining and tie in to their other offerings and it's not entirely free anyway - IIRC Office 365 is subscription based.

      So again what exactly are you looking for? Seemingly you want to move away from Google because you don't like the NSA revelations, the data mining, or whatever else. You wont want Microsoft for the same reasons then I would guess given that it's at least as supportive. There's no business in anyone else doing it without that data mining operation behind it because no one will pay what it would cost then, most are happy to put up with the mining and ads if they get their stuff cheap or free. So the only option is for you to offer bespoke to your clients, but bespoke costs, and you don't want to set it all up yourself so you need to up the costs by hiring someone else but I'd wager you don't want this either?

      What exactly is your position? it doesn't seem to make any sense. It sounds like you want to offer all in one services to people (clients?) but you don't want to actually do any work to earn your money from them. It sounds like you want to get a client and give them some turnkey bespoke solution, but a bespoke solution that you neither want to spend the effort to create, or presumably pay someone else to create. Are you asking to just make money as a middleman without putting the slightest bit of effort in to adding value to that position? That's what it sounds like.

      If you are willing to pay someone else to do it then ask any number of bespoke software development houses. It's not going to be cheap though which again is going to return you to the question of whether there's even a business model in it, and if you return there you'll probably have your reason as to why no one else is doing it because you're again going to be outcompeted by Google's ad supported model.

      I suspect this isn't the answer you wanted, but does it give you the answer you were looking for?

  21. I'll tell ya where they are... by jafiwam · · Score: 2

    "In 2000 there were thousands of email/web hosting businesses. In 2013 not much has changed. To get my email/web/webmail/domain/VOIP/public-key/XMPP/VPN hosting I have to deal with five different service providers. Where are the complete hosting providers? The absence of competition in this area drives many to Google, making data siphoning easy for the NSA. Why has hosting not advanced in the last 10 years? Where are the hosting providers that make end-to-end encrypted email/web/VOIP/XMPP easy and automatic for all my clients?"

    I'll tell ya where they are.

    They got out competed by companies that could afford good spam filtering. Hand holding the spam filter is a full time job for a small email host.

    Then, you get the idiots that jump ship for fifteen cents less per box per month, that drives the price down well below what it's worth doing unless the whole mess is completely automated. Or, the customers that said they would set it up themselves whine about how much work entering forty email addresses really is.

    And, as things got more sophisticated, now you have to host PHP full of security holes, be an expert at every goddamn widget in WordPress, teach the web tard that a fourteen meg background bitmap image won't be a good choice for his web page, and troubleshoot a borked database... all on three operating systems.

    Now, a small group "doing hosting" needs to have deep expertise in about 100 different subjects when they have time to learn five of them, and each "customer" will leave when they stumble upon one of those non expert areas. All the while not lifting a finger to help themselves.

    Oh, and the customers don't want to pay more than $5 per month for it.

    The days of sticking up a server, setting up an account and knowing the guy buying services knows what he is doing is LOOOONG gone. And, that in turn caused the market to collapse into the big players that can gain from having an expert in every subject around and still make a profit.

    I'll tell ya what the issue is, that your assumption that in TEN YEARS the industry didn't change drastically didn't set off alarm bells in your head when you typed it out for the summary. THAT's the problem. Thinking that in TEN YEARS the market won't change. In the COMPUTER industry no less.

  22. No such thing by gr8_phk · · Score: 2

    Where are the hosting providers that make end-to-end encrypted email/web/VOIP/XMPP easy and automatic for all my clients?

    It is up to the user and the mail client to do the encryption. If your hosting provider plays any part in that they will need the keys and can therefore hand them over to others - or do decryption for others and keep the keys. Any way you look at it, end-to-end encryption requires that it be done AT THE END which means on your own machine.

  23. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When people think of hosting, they think of web, mail, and dns. They generally don't think of VoIP, VPN, or XMPP

    See, I'd agree that his grouping is arbitrary, but thinking about it leaves me wondering why we group web, mail, and DNS together. It seems more sensible to group email, VoIP, and XMPP together. Web space and email really have no functional overlap, whereas you can benefit from integrating chat, voice, and email.

    So ultimately, what he's asking my not be nonsense. We have many various hosted services, so why do we arbitrarily group some of them together, and not others? I think the answer is that we don't include VoIP because ISPs tend to lock that up for home users, whereas businesses want dedicated business solutions. VPN is more of a niche service, and most people don't bother setting up chat services because they're used to using AOL. I'm not sure why we don't find a better solution than having dedicated certificate authorities that charge ridiculous prices, but we haven't done that.

  24. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Xest · · Score: 2

    I think it's less about functional overlap and more about the core sets of things people want when they're looking for hosting.

    Normally if you want a website, you buy a domain, and you'll want e-mail on that domain too so it all fits. Few people want XMPP and VOIP with that.

    At least this is my experience, when I've gone looking for a host it's for a website (if I just wanted mail I'd use gmail or whatever). I also want an address to go with that. If I've got the address, I'd at very least like to be able to forward e-mail from it (e.g. admin@mynewname.whatever).

    If a provider grouped VOIP, XMPP and so forth with my e-mail and had my web and DNS as separate things I'd go elsewhere because I don't want to end up paying for shit I don't need.

    I'd wager it is the way it is because my experience is typical of the market - the money is in people looking for web hosting and a hostname and e-mail address to go with that so ISPs have optimised for offering that.

  25. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Squash · · Score: 3, Informative

    Almost didn't reply to this, as it is feeding the trolls. However, I'd just like to say that rumors of the hosting business' death have been exaggerated.

    --
    Squash
  26. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by Squash · · Score: 2

    Absolutely. For business who actually have to compete (aka not your local cable provider!), you group services together that people *want* to buy together. Businesses who use hosting providers (meaning small to medium businesses who don't have the IT presence to handle it internally) by and large need the exact package of dns, web, and email. Some need an extra service here and there, and I'm happy to provide them, but almost everyone needs those three. Adding services to that would increase the cost to provide them, which would increase the cost to customers, and they don't like to pay for features they don't use.

    --
    Squash
  27. Re:the cloud killed hosting providers by charlesnw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes. EIG destroyed the last good hosting company (HostGator). I worked there for a year (pre EIG purchase), and have several friends who worked through the transition. I can't count how many times we migrated folks from Dreamhost/GoDaddy/*EIG companies to HG. Every single customer absolutely abhorred those companies and had always heard good things about HG and wanted to migrate. We focused on great service/uptime and we delivered. Pre purchase, we went above/beyond for each and every customer. We made everything work. For 3.00 a month, you could call a Linux admin and we would help you. 24x7x365. We never closed. I worked weekend graveyard (Wednesday to Sunday night), and helped countless US based customers with all kinds of off hours migrations (mostly on VPS/dedicated hosts, but also on shared/resell). I also supported customers all over the globe during their business hours. This was across a global data center footprint (sjc/lax/iah/dfw just in the US) on 10s of thousands of servers. We always went out of our way to never say no. I encountered a huge amount of highly intelligent individuals doing all kinds of things with our shared hosting. The VPS/dedicated customers were always fun to work on. Cpanel/WHM is actually pretty slick. Really it's almost an entire OS. Yeah it's Centos underneath, but it does all kinds of stuff on top of that. The backend CLI tools are quite nice. Post purchase, support went down the drain. EIG pumped/dumped HG and just IPOed. They force migrated everyone to a data center with horrible staff, network gear that was garbage, too little bandwidth etc. All to save on monthly hosting costs with Softlayer. They don't realize the economies of scale and horizontal growth model that was the core of HG business model. (We were adding almost 100 shared/reseller servers a week) Ah well. The 90s and 00s are over. It's all big business and horrible service now.

    --
    Charles Wyble System Engineer