Sounds like a good public service. I’d much rather have my data deleted until it’s secured than have it stolen by someone else.
This is not what people mean by open data
True, but a deleted database is secure again ;)
I understand that some people won't learn without encouragement but it's not a good thing for all.
Ultimately, companies like MongoDB and Elasticsearch are culpable for selling database technology that is insecure by default, presumably because that's the easiest way to boost their metrics for the VC overlords.
They could have altered the data and no one would have been the wiser
Making decisions based on a writable database (to the world, and not just from data sources like census, etc) is utterly useless.
Rather, for the first two, large numbers of agents may request access limited to a specific account, with limited capabilities granted.
Even Mediawiki, with an extraordinarily open access model (painfully so in most cases) has checks on extensive abuse, and gradations of permissions.
Suggesting that any of these are comparable to full DBA access as the Meow attack (with considerable merits0 targets suggests an exceeding poor grasp of distinctions or misreading of GP's comment.
You can do better.
> I’d much rather have my data deleted until it’s secured than have it stolen by someone else
There are multiple logical fallacies in this sentence. First is the use of the world 'until' which is ambiguous here; it suggests that your data can be 'undeleted' after the DB has been secured or you would rather not have any data stored anywhere that is not secured. Either option to me seems like an incorrect read of your comment but I'm not sure. And "than have it stolen by someone else" seems to imply that you know that this data was never copied and cannot be stolen still. I think that seems incorrect, unless there is something I missed that assures everyone that the data could not have been stolen during these hacks.
Lastly, your personally preferred outcome for your personal data is not a measure for all of society, but you grant it that "public service" label as if your preference matters above everyone else's. You don't know what other people think about their data. You don't know what the data even is. What if some of it was just a hobby project for someone, with no financial implications of unsecured data or of data loss, but with emotional attachment to their data? Do they not matter to you?
A blind deletion of unknown data belonging to unknown people is not a public service.
Consider if this happened five years ago, it would have had a smaller cost than happening today. And it was probably going to happen at some point, so better that it happened five years ago than today. By the same argument, better that it happened now than at any point in the future.
I'm not sure how serious I am about this argument but...at least a little bit? I guess the alternative argument is that any day now software vendors would have all moved to secure-by-default platforms where deploying a world-writable Redis in production would have been so difficult that it rarely happened.
A docker container can have internal ports exposed explicitly, or use host networking. In any case these are ports exposed by the docker-proxy executable - an executable like any other on the system.
Then come the iptables rules of the system (which open or not data flow to the ports exposed by docker-proxy).
Or is it different?
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere 172.19.0.10 tcp dpt:8843
So not too concerned about partition tolerance, huh?
It is, better than to steal the data, you know what a really bad service is? Let your Database wide open, and expose your customers data (maybe?) for everyone to read.
No, there aren't any fallacies in that sentence and can't be.
The statement expresses a personal preference; to be fallacious there must be some logic that can be unsound. That is, it must start from some premises and then derive a conclusion. To find a fallacy, you have to show that at some point the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Since it's a simple assertion, it is implicitly sound. (The graph of premises to conclusions is just a single node.) And since the author knows with certainty what his preferences are, we can take it as true. It's fruitless to argue with people about what their preferences are.
> First is the use of the world 'until' which is ambiguous here
Virtually all "fallacies" you see online are just people typing their thoughts in a hurry. Take advantage of interaction and ask them to clarify.
> Lastly, your personally preferred outcome for your personal data is not a measure for all of society, but you grant it that "public service" label as if your preference matters above everyone else's.
And as a member of the public, if it serves my interest, it is a public service to some extent.
Now, fair enough, you're trying to attack it as not being some broader notion of a public service. You have that broader notion in mind, but you don't explain what it is.
Instead you apply your internal definition through "as if..." which puts you in the territory of inventing a claim they simply never made. That's not even fallacious, it's pure fiction.
> A blind deletion of unknown data belonging to unknown people is not a public service.
You do make some claims, mostly coached as questions, that might lead to this conclusion. You never plainly state your premises, nor do you connect them to this conclusion.
So after all that, your conclusion is a non sequitur!