You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Why ? What's your point ? I don't agree, having a windows solution is a concern for people knowning about security implication of having an live account with 10'000 USD. Are you in peace when you trade such amount of money knowing any failure can ruin your trades ? Are you concerned about 'man in the middle' attacks ? Windows based VPS only offer poor 128 bits encryption (or not at all by default) with Remote Desktop protocol. We do encrypt every traffic with 2048 bits at least.
Did you read everything I wrote...? U should be defending your company's reputation now and not the reliability of your servers... (I am sure they are reliable, that's not the point at all).
Anyway, since you are here promoting a service, I think you are biased and there is not much point in this conversation.
Surely protecting intellectual property is a niche concern, specific to worlds such as MT4, because most people don't have any on their computer?
Nope. IMHO, that's people's main concern when it comes to EA hosting security. They do have it on their computer, but it is relatively 'anonymous', as opposed to putting it on a server known to be hosting EA's and physically being outside of their home.
Nope. IMHO, that's people's main concern when it comes to EA hosting security. They do have it on their computer, but it is relatively 'anonymous', as opposed to putting it on a server known to be hosting EA's and physically being outside of their home.
I think we're largely in agreement; I did refer to it being "specific to worlds such as MT4".
Any computer connected to the internet will be constantly battered by all sorts of generic intrusion attempt which you will want to protect against. I can't think what steps you would/could take to prevent external people specifically grabbing your EAs which you wouldn't take anyway just to prevent your machine being reduced to rubble by normal intrusion attempts. If random person X on the internet can get your EA off your VPS, then your VPS will already be toast because it will be filled with every piece of generic malware under the sun, and crash.
Therefore, your specific concern with MT4 hosting must be the hosting provider, not external hackers.
One route is to fill your hard disk with as many EAs as you can find (or create). How does the hosting provider then work out which is the marvellous one you're terrified of someone stealing? Same principle supporting the notion of hiding yourself amongst lots of other MT4 customers, all with .ex4 files which might or might not be gold-dust - i.e. use a specialist MT4 hosting platform.
One route is to fill your hard disk with as many EAs as you can find (or create). How does the hosting provider then work out which is the marvellous one you're terrified of someone stealing?
The last EA used (or is currently being used) leaves traces... Since on Terminal restart it's still attached - this must be saved somewhere. This info might be used to find out the true EA...
Edit: even the logs would tell us which one is the true one... I don't think it could be hidden reliably.
The last EA used (or is currently being used) leaves traces... Since on Terminal restart it's still attached - this must be saved somewhere. This info might be used to find out the true EA...
Edit: even the logs would tell us which one is the true one... I don't think it could be hidden reliably.
So, you create any number of EAs, attach them to charts, but make them dummy EAs which never actually trade. I'm not aware of a way of determining, from the hard disk alone, which of those EAs has been trading.
Another option is to deploy onto your VPS an EA which is deliberately incredibly slow when back-tested. What's the hosting provider going to do? Run long-term forward tests of every customer EA they can find, in order to identify the tiny number which aren't junk? Or do you think that the hosting provider can tap into the broker traffic stream and read the proprietary protocol to get your account info?
I think we're in danger of going down a "security through obscurity" rathole that won't help any of us.
I prefer to pick a reputable hosting company that I can:
- meet and talk with face to face
- sign security contracts and SLAs with
- take total control of the platform, in confidence that no one else is going near it
You have to wonder at the motivation of companies who offer EA hosting services. I wonder why they'd want to limit their market in this area :-)
CB
So, you create any number of EAs, attach them to charts, but make them dummy EAs which never actually trade. I'm not aware of a way of determining, from the hard disk alone, which of those EAs has been trading.
The logs... They contain account number and expert name... The history folder will contain the server (=broker) name. All u have to do is check the range of live account numbers for each broker (Alpari for example has detailed information about this on their website).
Another option is to deploy onto your VPS an EA which is deliberately incredibly slow when back-tested. What's the hosting provider going to do? Run long-term forward tests of every customer EA they can find, in order to identify the tiny number which aren't junk? Or do you think that the hosting provider can tap into the broker traffic stream and read the proprietary protocol to get your account info?
Now we are being silly :) Isn't it much simpler to use a 'regular' hosting service. BTW, they are usually also much cheaper. For some reason EA-specific hosting costs more...
You have to wonder at the motivation of companies who offer EA hosting services. I wonder why they'd want to limit their market in this area :-)
Well, picking three out of the 17,000 reasons:
Well, picking three out of the 17,000 reasons: [...]
I've got nothing better to do right at this instant, so I'll throw in another 15 of the reasons (only 16,982 to go). The first three are the usual justification for MT4-specific providers having higher charges than generic ones: