Having the db freely available makes it a lot easier for a bad actor to figure out how to avoid getting in it, though. So situations like this are suited to having a centralized owner of the data who can perform rate limiting, restrict to its paying customers, etc.

Distributing the database to customers is still workable despite this drawback - antivirus systems are a common example.

> Having the db freely available makes it a lot easier for a bad actor to figure out how to avoid getting in it

I don't agree with that. Having the database only allows bad actors to see if they've been added to the database - not the business logic of how they ended up in that database.

You could argue that knowing you've been added to the database is still an advantage, which is true. But those same bad actors could still test the system with SaaS solutions too. eg when one acquires stolen bank cards it is common to use those details to make small payments for things like food delivery to test if those card have been blocked or not.

Having a fast, cheap and detailed feedback loop is useful for testing for the bad guys, like in any programming process. For example, in the credit card case, you can check thousands of cards without needing to find a merchant who will take your thousands of small, frequently-declined transactions. Or you can check the details for cards you haven't fully compromised (maybe the guy selling you stolen bank cards only gives you a portion of the details until you've paid him).

Oh absolutely. Like many things security related, it's not always about stopping them but rather slowing them down enough so that it doesn't become cost effective.

That's preferable for the customer but it's obvious why a vendor wouldn't be keen.

> That's preferable for the customer

I wouldn't say it's preferable for the customer. It's just one of many options.

> but it's obvious why a vendor wouldn't be keen

Yes, SaaS obviously has benefits for vendors too but what's most preferable to them is making money. If every customer refused to do business with SaaS then vendors wouldn't prefer providing SaaS solutions (yes, I know I said "solutions solutions" :P). The reason SaaS is so prolific is because it offers advantages to customers as well.

>>yes, I know I said "solutions solutions" :P

When has SaaS stood for anything besides Software as a Service? Because software as a solution could describe almost any business model?

Yeah you're right. And weirdly I did know that so I haven't a clue why I wrote that comment. I can only assume it was a multitasking fail. Thanks for the correction though :)