Hacker News Reader

Comment by LaGrange | Hacker News Reader

"Let Google do the patching"

Also replace your shepherd dogs with wolves, wolves are bigger, faster, and will do it for free[*].

I don't understand this comment, what are you suggesting Google will do? Surreptitiously insert code into your binary during a patch?

If you are running in Google cloud, its their machines and they have power to do pretty much whatever they want anyway. How would this feature affect anything?

Once you're dependent on their packaging process, why would they ever have to introduce whatever tracking or restriction they want "surreptitiously"? It'll be a part of their internal monitoring and diagnostics package.

This doesn't make any sense. What motives would Google have for providing an insecure service on their cloud hosting.

I'm all for Google-bashing in areas that actually make some sense but this is nonsensical.

If you are into conspiracy theory's and such, then you can question if google and NSA really have a partnership and PRISM and mass surveillance and all that stuff, then question if the images are tainted or whatnot. I am not saying it is so by any stretch. I am just saying how i can understand the paranoid not trusting this 100%.

Still makes no sense. If you're paranoid about it, why are you running on google's cloud?

Sidestepping the conspiracy questions, these images are built reproducibly, from sources available on GitHub. You can clone the repo, audit the build tools and inputs, and build the image yourself. You'll get the exact same sha256 as the one on our registry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com