Thanks John for your efforts and nicley putting it on website & youtube .
Just quick question - Is it compactiable with DSE versions? I know under
the hood they have cassandra only , but just wanted to listen your
thoughts.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Jon Haddad wrote:
> Apache 2 Licens
Hi Anil,
yes, that's the one in use there.
I should probably merge it into master to avoid confusion.
Cheers,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:12 AM CPC wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Is lost-token-range detection impl finished? Since this feature is more
> appealing I want to test it.
>
> Thank you for your
Hi Alex,
Is lost-token-range detection impl finished? Since this feature is more
appealing I want to test it.
Thank you for your help
On Nov 16, 2017 10:35 AM, "Alexander Dejanovski"
wrote:
Hi,
The policy is used in production at least in my former company.
I can help if you have issues usin
That sounds like a great way to DoS yourself. While I'm sure it could be
achieved, probably in a pretty messy way, I don't think it's a good idea
and seems to me like way over the top security. Especially because sure,
you might be able to protect against CQL "attacks" via triggers (ugh) - but
if t
ok please find bellow an example:
Lets suppose that i have a cassandra cluster of 4 nodes / one DC /
replication factor = 4, So in this architecture i have on full copy of the
data on each node.
Imagine now that one node have been hacked and in some way with full access
to cqlsh session, if data
Hello,
If I understand the OP right, he wants an automated response one node
displays suspicious activity.
I suppose in that case, one would want the node to be removed from the
cluster or shut down or both.
Best, Oliver
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, kurt greaves wrote:
> Wha
Yea there’s a whole lot of stuff here that doesn’t make sense
I’m not sure what the threat model really is, but there’s a lot of moving
pieces here, and the place you’re thinking about adding validation isn’t the
first place I’d be concerned with (internode tends to be a bigger problem).
Why do
What's the purpose here? If they have access to cqlsh, they have access to
every nodes data, not just the one they are on. An attacker modifying RF
would be the least of your worries. If you manage to detect that some node
is compromise you should isolate it immediately.
On 16 Nov. 2017 07:33, "Ab
Thanks!
So assuming C* 3.0 and that my table stores only one collection, using
clustering keys will be more performant?
Extending this to sets - would doing something like this make sense?
(
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
val text,
PRIMARY KEY (id, val))
);
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE WHERE id = 123
