quinndiggity

"An analogy: there are open source versions of Dropbox for users that don't trust Dropbox with their files (NextCloud, ownCloud, etc.), however this comes with the friction of having to host your own solution. We are more like Dropbox, where we want to create a solution that is incredibly easy to install, manage, and work with."

NextCloud: self-host OR pay for a managed option (this means someone runs it for you.) ownCloud: self-host OR pay for a managed option (this means someone runs it for you.)

He compared it to Dropbox, Nextcloud, and ownCloud.

If ycombinator and their mods are more concerned with the promotion of one of their own investments, over discussion of its merits and feedback from the people who _would_ be the ones adopting and promoting it in their own companies if it indeed lived up to its own marketing, then I invite a ban for trying to keep hackernews honest and driven by community discussion, over a place for them to advertise, self promote, pat themselves on the back, and pad their wallets.

To be brutally honest (as if not already), Doppler makes me wonder why not simply focus on building on-top of open solutions like Vault. Considering there is no on-prem version of Doppler, you could essentially run Vault behind the scenes and provide the experience you are aiming to deliver with Doppler, giving you a marketing strategy for free ("Ready to run secret management with a focus on usability; the fastest zero to production option for 'Enterprise' secret management"), that doesn't require contrasting yourself ("We ARE Vault; it's a great tool, we made it easier"), and could even value-add or contribute back upstream (vs trying to cannibalize someone who could be your peer), and even reduces your engineering effort and the need to revalidate all the security primitives (and have 3rd parties do that for you just by their using it).

Disclaimer; I have nothing to do with HashiCorp, they've just done right by me, have been great to the community, and are always improving and learning from their mistakes. A nerve is struck when marketing tells people that they are using the wrong tool (without backing that up with data), and making comparisons to a protocol which has fallen to the wayside aside from limited use cases but otherwise is predominantly insecure.

> I am not invalidating someone's right to privacy.

You are saying that not having the choice to choose what to share is acceptable though. Privacy isn't about having something to hide, it's about having the same rights you have with your day-to-day thoughts; you aren't forced to shout every single thought that pops into your mind, you are able to pick and choose what you would like to express and share. Privacy and encryption aim towards that goal.

with this setup, Vault will create a new database user based on the configuration you set (read-only for some services, for example), and will attach a time-to-live to those credentials; as long as the application is using them, it will renew the TTL. When an application is killed, or scaling happens, etc, and the application instance isn't using those specific credentials, Vault will clean up and remove the unused account cleanly

Can do all sorts of great things with this; for example TLS (ssl) certificate renewals, etc, as the certificate expiry IS the TTL; when a certificate needs to be renewed it can happen automatically and your application can receive any signal you choose (SIGHUP, for example)