Microsoft Announces "Surface" Tablet (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

So the federal government is basically saying that you have to have a trusted 3rd party house your data.

yes

They trust that 3rd party to protect your data better than you in case of a disaster.

Not really certain what their logic is behind the requirement

Well, either way, your motive for using Iron Mountain is pretty clear. I don't think federal mandate is the reason that most of their customers actually use their services though. The motivation is that setting up your own facility and/or secure delivery mechanism is prohibitively expensive, and it makes more financial sense to put this in the hands of a 3rd party that specializes in this despite the fact it results in losing absolute control over your data. Based on what the data is worth, how much risk is presented by trusting this 3rd party vs doing this yourself, and how much it would cost to avoid that risk. The public cloud and the reasons companies are and will continue to adopt it aren't all that much different than this. In an ideal world with all expenses spared would you rather have absolute control over your data? Of course. But that comes at an expense. So the question is how much risk does trusting a 3rd party to do some of this present, and how much is the expense to avoid that risk? The public cloud is going to come out on the plus side in this analysis more and more as the technology and companies delivering it continue to mature.

In the case of the end user it goes even beyond this. They don't really want to have to worry about any of this stuff, security, technical specifications, all of that crap. They simply want the computer to make their life easier and have us geeks worry about security and all of that on the back end - IT as a service, like their plumbing, electricity, television, and banking. It's not all that surprising that bells and whistles are what sells them. The public cloud has the promise to deliver this, along with a model that's inherently more secure than what they've been dealing with.

Our "motive" is because we have to have a third party. I have no idea why others do it. I suspect that it's cheaper for a lot of places to hire a service to keep their data rather than build a facility to do it themselves. And I'll repeat, I know that someone in the general public wants to worry about any of it. They don't care. I know this. All I'm saying is I can't believe how trusting they are of something so lax in security. That's all. Ignorance is bliss fits what I am talking about perfectly.

 

[The Commish]

Why do companies get these 3rd party colo facilities when they lose absolute control of their data? Why do they hire Iron Mountain to store all of it with the same concerns? Because it's way cheaper.Or on another note, why do you put your money into a bank rather than buy a giant safe and pitbulls to protect it yourself? Because that's inefficient and they've proven to be better at protecting your money than you could be without devoting vast resources to it.

We use Iron Mountain to store out tape backups because federal law requires we be able to recover a version of our software completely. Not sure where you're going with this.

Couldn't you set up a facility that you own that would satisfy those requirements?

Could my company set up a third party site? I don't think so. We do have four different data centers that are all redundant to each other, but we still have to keep hard copy at a third party site. I doubt we'd ever have to use the actual tape backup method but it's still required.

But it would be possible for you to set up a facility specifically for this and satisfy it, that you actually own and maintain? That's what I'm asking. We'll say you're willing to spare all expenses because you want to maintain absolute control of your data in house.ETA: If not, this brings up another interesting angle. Maybe the government will eventually mandate certain RTO and RPO objectives that force you to adopt public cloud based DR rather than antiquated tape.

There's no point to do that since it's not going to meet the federal requirement. We'd rather have complete control through our data centers, but it's not allowed.

I'm curious about this. Which audit regulation requires a third-party to manage the backups? I didn't think that was required in SOX,GLBA. I really thought it wasn't even a requirement in SOX but rather a suggestion. The main focus would actually be the five year data retention. I'm not up on all of the regulations so could be way off base. Just didn't think that was a true requirement.

Very good question. I'm not sure. I do know it was a requirement prior to SOX and GLBA though. It was a requirement back in the 90s. It should be noted that it's not about managing the backups, it's about storing them in a place other than the data centers.

 

[The Commish]

iHUCKS

 

[goonsquad]

Microsoft could have made a similar tablet to the iPad earlier, but I don't know if the stars were aligned for them to make it a success without Apple coming along first. This isn't a knock on Microsoft. Their success in the PC market also handcuffs them in many ways. Along the same lines, I doubt the iPad would have been as successful if Apple had chosen to launch it before the iPhone. Honestly, it took the iPhone to come along and crack open the market that Windows had locked down. That was the key; it was a non-Windows computer hiding inside of a non-computer device. It was a trojan horse that opened the locked gates from within.Here's a thought: maybe it wasn't that Microsoft failed to realize that people don't need those legacy apps. Maybe it is users themselves that don't realize this. There is still a large group of people (even here) that believe that they need a full desktop OS on a tablet when a laptop is already a perfect form factor for portable productivity. The Surface Pro then becomes a device where it's main selling point (productivity) is limited by it's inherent compromises (tablet form factor). It is a productivity machine that isn't ideal for productivity, at the same price point as Ultrabooks which do their intended job much better.

The iPad is successful because it was never meant to be a laptop replacement; watch the video I posted above and you will see that Apple clearly shows the iPad falling in-between the iPhone and MacBook. It fits perfectly between the smartphone and laptop in functionality and in price. And user satisfaction is so high despite it's limitations because buyers know exactly what they are buying and where it fits into the scheme of things. It does the job that it promises perfectly. It doesn't do everything, but it simply isn't expected to. And it is priced to match those expectations.

The Surface Pro may very well be a success, in fact I fully expect it to sell a ton out of the gates. I'm just not sure that I believe that an all-in-one tablet is the true future of productivity machines.

 

[goonsquad]

iHUCKS

Insightful as always. How's the view from the Peanut Gallery?

 

[The Commish]

iHUCKS

Insightful as always. How's the view from the Peanut Gallery?

 

[DrJ]

And really, you guys are completely in the minority on the consumer level if that's what you're talking about when you're concerned about security. Consumers really don't give a crap and will put their stuff at Apple, Google, Dropbox, whatever the case may be if it makes it more convenient for them. They'll buy up some office program that shares all of their files over port 80 with no password if they like the way it edits files. They're about the bells and whistles. That's why these services are hugely popular despite your valid concerns with the security of them. So even if there are concerns about security at that level - it won't interfere any with adoption. It's all about what makes things easier.

I don't disagree with a single word of this and that's what's scary. They just don't give a ####. I don't trust any of them with any of my stuff. Partly because I know at a high level how each works and partly because I know specifics of some of the larger ones. Not a chance in hell anything of mine gets out there. I know folks who think it's fine to use these clouds as their back up area. That's how it's sold to them, so you'll find their tax returns, bank statements, all kinds of personal crap out there.All I've said is I can't believe people are this trusting of such a vulnerable technology. That's it. I acknowledge it can be perfectly safe if the time is taken to do things correctly. From what I've seen, that time and expense have not been taken in most cases. That's all.

How do you back up important docs?

I use an external HD local to my machine that connects via USB. I also burn a DVD once a quarter.

What if your house burns down? Do you store the DVD offsite?

I take a copy of all my changed docs to our safe deposit box once a year. This includes tax docs, investments, wills, etc etc. If the building burns down and they target my safe deposit box to get into after the fire, I'm screwed. It's a scenario and risk I am willing to take though.

How often do you test restores of these files to ensure the integrity of your process? And don't you see how a non technical user could potentially not have the ability to do this? Or not want to invest the time and resources into doing this? Especially if there were someone they could trust to do it for them at a click of a button, and keep it all safe, without having to think about it? And given that they don't really understand nor want to understand technical security, this model is easily more secure for them if they select the right provider.

 

[DrJ]

So the federal government is basically saying that you have to have a trusted 3rd party house your data.

yes

They trust that 3rd party to protect your data better than you in case of a disaster.

Not really certain what their logic is behind the requirement

Well, either way, your motive for using Iron Mountain is pretty clear. I don't think federal mandate is the reason that most of their customers actually use their services though. The motivation is that setting up your own facility and/or secure delivery mechanism is prohibitively expensive, and it makes more financial sense to put this in the hands of a 3rd party that specializes in this despite the fact it results in losing absolute control over your data. Based on what the data is worth, how much risk is presented by trusting this 3rd party vs doing this yourself, and how much it would cost to avoid that risk. The public cloud and the reasons companies are and will continue to adopt it aren't all that much different than this. In an ideal world with all expenses spared would you rather have absolute control over your data? Of course. But that comes at an expense. So the question is how much risk does trusting a 3rd party to do some of this present, and how much is the expense to avoid that risk? The public cloud is going to come out on the plus side in this analysis more and more as the technology and companies delivering it continue to mature.

In the case of the end user it goes even beyond this. They don't really want to have to worry about any of this stuff, security, technical specifications, all of that crap. They simply want the computer to make their life easier and have us geeks worry about security and all of that on the back end - IT as a service, like their plumbing, electricity, television, and banking. It's not all that surprising that bells and whistles are what sells them. The public cloud has the promise to deliver this, along with a model that's inherently more secure than what they've been dealing with.

Our "motive" is because we have to have a third party. I have no idea why others do it. I suspect that it's cheaper for a lot of places to hire a service to keep their data rather than build a facility to do it themselves. And I'll repeat, I know that someone in the general public wants to worry about any of it. They don't care. I know this. All I'm saying is I can't believe how trusting they are of something so lax in security. That's all. Ignorance is bliss fits what I am talking about perfectly.

I'm not sure it's fair to call them ignorant. Us IT guys like to belittle people that know less about this stuff, but when I get into my car I prefer to just turn the key and have it work. And if it doesn't, I call somebody that specializes in that because he has more experience and far superior tools for the job. This is all users want our of their IT experience as well. Not because they're ignorant - because not everyone is a geek that wants to worry about the nuts and bolts of what goes into IT security. They just want to turn the key and have it make their life easier, not all that unreasonable.

 

[sho nuff]

The Surface Pro may very well be a success, in fact I fully expect it to sell a ton out of the gates. I'm just not sure that I believe that an all-in-one tablet is the true future of productivity machines, unless Apple decides to do it, then I think its the greatest thing ever.

Fixed that for you.

 

[17seconds]

The biggest story of this isn't MSFT vs. Apple. It's MSFT vs. the PC. If they can start producing good Windows devices themselves, they get profit streams that aren't marred by the ####ed hodgepodge PC ecosystem. They have the ability to control their destiny. They could do well to break from Dell, HP, and Lenovo's of the world.

 

[goonsquad]

The Surface Pro may very well be a success, in fact I fully expect it to sell a ton out of the gates. I'm just not sure that I believe that an all-in-one tablet is the true future of productivity machines, unless Apple decides to do it, then I think its the greatest thing ever.

Fixed that for you.

Not sure if your just having fun or being a snide #######. Maybe both. I have stated in other threads that I don't agree with the idea of completely merging iOS and OS X into one single system like many people have speculated. I tend to think that would be a confusing and schizophrenic user experience, but maybe Apple will prove me wrong.ETA: To clarify, I don't agree with the Windows 8 approach of overlaying a mobile OS on top of a legacy file management system with apps that work in one mode and not the other. If Apple merges their OS systems, they seem to be heading towards the iOS model where the user doesn't interact directly with filing and organizing their files. I could see them moving completely in this direction, even on their pro machines. Their professional level applications like Aperture already lock files away from the user and make them only accessible through the app. Still not sure how I feel about this approach. As for the tablet form factor itself, I suppose I could envision a tablet that was able to AirPlay directly to a larger monitor to become a full workstation. I'll have to give that more thought.

 

[The Commish]

And really, you guys are completely in the minority on the consumer level if that's what you're talking about when you're concerned about security. Consumers really don't give a crap and will put their stuff at Apple, Google, Dropbox, whatever the case may be if it makes it more convenient for them. They'll buy up some office program that shares all of their files over port 80 with no password if they like the way it edits files. They're about the bells and whistles. That's why these services are hugely popular despite your valid concerns with the security of them. So even if there are concerns about security at that level - it won't interfere any with adoption. It's all about what makes things easier.

I don't disagree with a single word of this and that's what's scary. They just don't give a ####. I don't trust any of them with any of my stuff. Partly because I know at a high level how each works and partly because I know specifics of some of the larger ones. Not a chance in hell anything of mine gets out there. I know folks who think it's fine to use these clouds as their back up area. That's how it's sold to them, so you'll find their tax returns, bank statements, all kinds of personal crap out there.All I've said is I can't believe people are this trusting of such a vulnerable technology. That's it. I acknowledge it can be perfectly safe if the time is taken to do things correctly. From what I've seen, that time and expense have not been taken in most cases. That's all.

How do you back up important docs?

I use an external HD local to my machine that connects via USB. I also burn a DVD once a quarter.

What if your house burns down? Do you store the DVD offsite?

I take a copy of all my changed docs to our safe deposit box once a year. This includes tax docs, investments, wills, etc etc. If the building burns down and they target my safe deposit box to get into after the fire, I'm screwed. It's a scenario and risk I am willing to take though.

How often do you test restores of these files to ensure the integrity of your process? And don't you see how a non technical user could potentially not have the ability to do this? Or not want to invest the time and resources into doing this? Especially if there were someone they could trust to do it for them at a click of a button, and keep it all safe, without having to think about it? And given that they don't really understand nor want to understand technical security, this model is easily more secure for them if they select the right provider.

Test a backup/restore? When I have a problem I understand all of what you're saying. I don't know why you keep asking me if I see how the average user won't want to do all that. I get that they don't want to. What providers are you talking about when you mention "select the right provider"? I haven't run across one that is secure enough for me to trust, but I certainly haven't evaluated all of them. But note, I say FOR ME to trust. I get that most people don't care...doesn't mean the sites are safe.

 

[The Commish]

So the federal government is basically saying that you have to have a trusted 3rd party house your data.

yes

They trust that 3rd party to protect your data better than you in case of a disaster.

Not really certain what their logic is behind the requirement

Well, either way, your motive for using Iron Mountain is pretty clear. I don't think federal mandate is the reason that most of their customers actually use their services though. The motivation is that setting up your own facility and/or secure delivery mechanism is prohibitively expensive, and it makes more financial sense to put this in the hands of a 3rd party that specializes in this despite the fact it results in losing absolute control over your data. Based on what the data is worth, how much risk is presented by trusting this 3rd party vs doing this yourself, and how much it would cost to avoid that risk. The public cloud and the reasons companies are and will continue to adopt it aren't all that much different than this. In an ideal world with all expenses spared would you rather have absolute control over your data? Of course. But that comes at an expense. So the question is how much risk does trusting a 3rd party to do some of this present, and how much is the expense to avoid that risk? The public cloud is going to come out on the plus side in this analysis more and more as the technology and companies delivering it continue to mature.

In the case of the end user it goes even beyond this. They don't really want to have to worry about any of this stuff, security, technical specifications, all of that crap. They simply want the computer to make their life easier and have us geeks worry about security and all of that on the back end - IT as a service, like their plumbing, electricity, television, and banking. It's not all that surprising that bells and whistles are what sells them. The public cloud has the promise to deliver this, along with a model that's inherently more secure than what they've been dealing with.

Our "motive" is because we have to have a third party. I have no idea why others do it. I suspect that it's cheaper for a lot of places to hire a service to keep their data rather than build a facility to do it themselves. And I'll repeat, I know that someone in the general public wants to worry about any of it. They don't care. I know this. All I'm saying is I can't believe how trusting they are of something so lax in security. That's all. Ignorance is bliss fits what I am talking about perfectly.

I'm not sure it's fair to call them ignorant. Us IT guys like to belittle people that know less about this stuff, but when I get into my car I prefer to just turn the key and have it work. And if it doesn't, I call somebody that specializes in that because he has more experience and far superior tools for the job. This is all users want our of their IT experience as well. Not because they're ignorant - because not everyone is a geek that wants to worry about the nuts and bolts of what goes into IT security. They just want to turn the key and have it make their life easier, not all that unreasonable.

Ignorant as in, not educated on the subject. It's not rocket science. I'm not calling them stupid.

 

[SacramentoBob]

iHUCKS

Insightful as always. How's the view from the Peanut Gallery?

His house must be made of really thick glass.

 

[sho nuff]

The Surface Pro may very well be a success, in fact I fully expect it to sell a ton out of the gates. I'm just not sure that I believe that an all-in-one tablet is the true future of productivity machines, unless Apple decides to do it, then I think its the greatest thing ever.

Fixed that for you.

Not sure if your just having fun or being a snide #######. Maybe both. I have stated in other threads that I don't agree with the idea of completely merging iOS and OS X into one single system like many people have speculated. I tend to think that would be a confusing and schizophrenic user experience, but maybe Apple will prove me wrong.ETA: To clarify, I don't agree with the Windows 8 approach of overlaying a mobile OS on top of a legacy file management system with apps that work in one mode and not the other. If Apple merges their OS systems, they seem to be heading towards the iOS model where the user doesn't interact directly with filing and organizing their files. I could see them moving completely in this direction, even on their pro machines. Their professional level applications like Aperture already lock files away from the user and make them only accessible through the app. Still not sure how I feel about this approach. As for the tablet form factor itself, I suppose I could envision a tablet that was able to AirPlay directly to a larger monitor to become a full workstation. I'll have to give that more thought.

Well...Im having fun...but I doubt that if Apple did as I manipulated your quote...that you would do anything other than praise it.Its pretty much your MO on here as far as Apple is concerned.

 

[DrJ]

And really, you guys are completely in the minority on the consumer level if that's what you're talking about when you're concerned about security. Consumers really don't give a crap and will put their stuff at Apple, Google, Dropbox, whatever the case may be if it makes it more convenient for them. They'll buy up some office program that shares all of their files over port 80 with no password if they like the way it edits files. They're about the bells and whistles. That's why these services are hugely popular despite your valid concerns with the security of them. So even if there are concerns about security at that level - it won't interfere any with adoption. It's all about what makes things easier.

I don't disagree with a single word of this and that's what's scary. They just don't give a ####. I don't trust any of them with any of my stuff. Partly because I know at a high level how each works and partly because I know specifics of some of the larger ones. Not a chance in hell anything of mine gets out there. I know folks who think it's fine to use these clouds as their back up area. That's how it's sold to them, so you'll find their tax returns, bank statements, all kinds of personal crap out there.All I've said is I can't believe people are this trusting of such a vulnerable technology. That's it. I acknowledge it can be perfectly safe if the time is taken to do things correctly. From what I've seen, that time and expense have not been taken in most cases. That's all.

How do you back up important docs?

I use an external HD local to my machine that connects via USB. I also burn a DVD once a quarter.

What if your house burns down? Do you store the DVD offsite?

I take a copy of all my changed docs to our safe deposit box once a year. This includes tax docs, investments, wills, etc etc. If the building burns down and they target my safe deposit box to get into after the fire, I'm screwed. It's a scenario and risk I am willing to take though.

How often do you test restores of these files to ensure the integrity of your process? And don't you see how a non technical user could potentially not have the ability to do this? Or not want to invest the time and resources into doing this? Especially if there were someone they could trust to do it for them at a click of a button, and keep it all safe, without having to think about it? And given that they don't really understand nor want to understand technical security, this model is easily more secure for them if they select the right provider.

Test a backup/restore? When I have a problem I understand all of what you're saying. I don't know why you keep asking me if I see how the average user won't want to do all that. I get that they don't want to. What providers are you talking about when you mention "select the right provider"? I haven't run across one that is secure enough for me to trust, but I certainly haven't evaluated all of them. But note, I say FOR ME to trust. I get that most people don't care...doesn't mean the sites are safe.

Much of it depends on your definition of safe, which realistically is going to vary quite a bit depending on what data you're storing and what your goals are. Most people understand the concept that your files are being stored somewhere else and another entity controls it. But protecting from data loss is also one aspect of the safety and security of your data, and they're not interested in going to great effort to remediate that on their end. It's a balancing act. In many cases it wouldn't even be worth it if they had the technical expertise - a lot of the data doesn't really matter if it's exposed, they just wouldn't want to go through the effort of recreating it (if it's even possible), or they simply want an easy way to share it among all of their devices. I just really don't think there's a lot of basis behind your statements that this stuff is inherently unsafe and people are crazy to adopt it as they have.

 

[The Commish]

Much of it depends on your definition of safe, which realistically is going to vary quite a bit depending on what data you're storing and what your goals are. Most people understand the concept that your files are being stored somewhere else and another entity controls it. But protecting from data loss is also one aspect of the safety and security of your data, and they're not interested in going to great effort to remediate that on their end. It's a balancing act. In many cases it wouldn't even be worth it if they had the technical expertise - a lot of the data doesn't really matter if it's exposed, they just wouldn't want to go through the effort of recreating it (if it's even possible), or they simply want an easy way to share it among all of their devices. I just really don't think there's a lot of basis behind your statements that this stuff is inherently unsafe and people are crazy to adopt it as they have.

I really fail to see how what you are talking about has anything to do with how safe the stuff is It's two different conversations. There's really no debate on how safe these sites are. They are what they are. We had both google, apple, barracuda, amazon etc in to go over their implementations and (at a high level) what their security measures are. We're looking into something similar for our customers, but none of what were learned is negated by saying "well, the data that people put out there isn't valuable so it doesn't matter". I'm not talking about the sliding scale you seem to be talking about.

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

 

[The Commish]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

 

[Slapdash]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Maybe because they have sufficiently bought influence in the government to allow them to overcome anti-trust concerns and erect barriers to entry?

 

[DrJ]

Much of it depends on your definition of safe, which realistically is going to vary quite a bit depending on what data you're storing and what your goals are. Most people understand the concept that your files are being stored somewhere else and another entity controls it. But protecting from data loss is also one aspect of the safety and security of your data, and they're not interested in going to great effort to remediate that on their end. It's a balancing act. In many cases it wouldn't even be worth it if they had the technical expertise - a lot of the data doesn't really matter if it's exposed, they just wouldn't want to go through the effort of recreating it (if it's even possible), or they simply want an easy way to share it among all of their devices. I just really don't think there's a lot of basis behind your statements that this stuff is inherently unsafe and people are crazy to adopt it as they have.

I really fail to see how what you are talking about has anything to do with how safe the stuff is It's two different conversations. There's really no debate on how safe these sites are. They are what they are. We had both google, apple, barracuda, amazon etc in to go over their implementations and (at a high level) what their security measures are. We're looking into something similar for our customers, but none of what were learned is negated by saying "well, the data that people put out there isn't valuable so it doesn't matter". I'm not talking about the sliding scale you seem to be talking about.

It's the same conversation - two different targets. The concerns of a business are very different from those of a consumer. And you can find providers that will fill the needs of either of these segments. Going back to the business side - if you're an AT&T subscriber using their MPLS network, you're sharing the same lines with TONS of other companies. You each have your own VPN of sorts. AT&T is capable of viewing the traffic on the line from all of you. But you place your trust in them that they'll be able to adequately segment this traffic so other companies can't look at your data, and that they won't abuse their ability to look at your traffic as it passes through their network. This really isn't any different, but for different resources.You could set up your own network if you want. Get permits from the government to construct it and all of that jazz. But that would be stupid. Just like not leveraging the public cloud because of overblown security concerns would be. Here's VMware's list of vCloud providers. These are just the ones they've certified, I know that Verizon also launched a vCloud service but doesn't seem to appear on these lists. http://vcloud.vmware.com/vcloud-ecosystemSurely you can find a 3rd party you can properly vet and trust out of this list. Which is growing...

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

 

[The Commish]

Much of it depends on your definition of safe, which realistically is going to vary quite a bit depending on what data you're storing and what your goals are. Most people understand the concept that your files are being stored somewhere else and another entity controls it. But protecting from data loss is also one aspect of the safety and security of your data, and they're not interested in going to great effort to remediate that on their end. It's a balancing act. In many cases it wouldn't even be worth it if they had the technical expertise - a lot of the data doesn't really matter if it's exposed, they just wouldn't want to go through the effort of recreating it (if it's even possible), or they simply want an easy way to share it among all of their devices. I just really don't think there's a lot of basis behind your statements that this stuff is inherently unsafe and people are crazy to adopt it as they have.

I really fail to see how what you are talking about has anything to do with how safe the stuff is It's two different conversations. There's really no debate on how safe these sites are. They are what they are. We had both google, apple, barracuda, amazon etc in to go over their implementations and (at a high level) what their security measures are. We're looking into something similar for our customers, but none of what were learned is negated by saying "well, the data that people put out there isn't valuable so it doesn't matter". I'm not talking about the sliding scale you seem to be talking about.

It's the same conversation - two different targets. The concerns of a business are very different from those of a consumer. And you can find providers that will fill the needs of either of these segments. Going back to the business side - if you're an AT&T subscriber using their MPLS network, you're sharing the same lines with TONS of other companies. You each have your own VPN of sorts. AT&T is capable of viewing the traffic on the line from all of you. But you place your trust in them that they'll be able to adequately segment this traffic so other companies can't look at your data, and that they won't abuse their ability to look at your traffic as it passes through their network. This really isn't any different, but for different resources.You could set up your own network if you want. Get permits from the government to construct it and all of that jazz. But that would be stupid. Just like not leveraging the public cloud because of overblown security concerns would be. Here's VMware's list of vCloud providers. These are just the ones they've certified, I know that Verizon also launched a vCloud service but doesn't seem to appear on these lists. http://vcloud.vmware.com/vcloud-ecosystemSurely you can find a 3rd party you can properly vet and trust out of this list. Which is growing...

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. I am talking specifically about what is actually out there and how it's implemented. A lot of the "popular" ones are not implemented properly and the lack of federal regulations (because it's such a new concept) help facilitate that. It all equals a faux sense of security.

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Maybe because they have sufficiently bought influence in the government to allow them to overcome anti-trust concerns and erect barriers to entry?

It would stand to reason that the same thing would likely happen on this front as well then. Because you've got the same forces backing this, along with other giants like Microsoft, Apple, VMware, Cisco, etc.

 

[Rayderr]

iHUCKS

Insightful as always. How's the view from the Peanut Gallery?

His house must be made of really thick glass.

Gorilla Glass.

 

[The Commish]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

 

[Slapdash]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Maybe because they have sufficiently bought influence in the government to allow them to overcome anti-trust concerns and erect barriers to entry?

It would stand to reason that the same thing would likely happen on this front as well then. Because you've got the same forces backing this, along with other giants like Microsoft, Apple, VMware, Cisco, etc.

I agre, things will trend this way. However it is much easier to set up a new VPN or other cloud services than setting up a new cell network. I doubt they will be as succesful in the sphere, but we know they certainly are trying.

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

 

[The Commish]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Maybe because they have sufficiently bought influence in the government to allow them to overcome anti-trust concerns and erect barriers to entry?

It would stand to reason that the same thing would likely happen on this front as well then. Because you've got the same forces backing this, along with other giants like Microsoft, Apple, VMware, Cisco, etc.

I agre, things will trend this way. However it is much easier to set up a new VPN or other cloud services than setting up a new cell network. I doubt they will be as succesful in the sphere, but we know they certainly are trying.

It's going to end up being a hybrid approach, how much you leverage the public vs private cloud will depend mostly on organization size and unique needs. Even with services like electricity and as centralized as it is, organizations still invest in things like UPSes and generators for the event that they screw up. And the amount they're willing to invest is typically proportional to what they have riding on the systems. A large organization with deep pockets that can afford to spare all expenses to ensure they have full control over availability, security, and all of that will lean strongly towards private. For companies without those deep pockets it will make far more sense to leverage 3rd party resources that specialize in these areas and keep minimal resources on site to get by for a while just in case they screw up. Where they only have to pay a fraction of what the UPS, Generator, redundancy, VPN connectivity, etc would cost them vs if they purchased the individual components to use just for themselves.

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

That all of the things you're referencing (some of which are mostly perception) will change and we see near ubiquitous adoption of these technologies.

 

[mattdaddy]

Watched the keynote finally and came away with a really good feeling about what they are doing with this product in the bigger picture of the Windows world. The device itself comes across as very useful and cool. More importantly with the launch of Windows 8 a developer can potentially write one app that would be avaliable for sale on 4 different platforms including Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro for PC or Surface, and XBox. There are at least 40 million Xbox users, maybe 10 million phone, and 100s of million Windows 7 users currently and 100s of million Windows users not on 7. If all this carries forward to Windows 8 then any one App can potentially be sold to a much larger audience then Apple can provide now or even in the near future. It's resonable to think that the number could be a 1/2 billion users worldwide in the relatively short future. This market won't be ignored and an explosion of Apps is sure to happen.

 

[The Commish]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

That all of the things you're referencing (some of which are mostly perception) will change and we see near ubiquitous adoption of these technologies.

And what's going to make them change?

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

That all of the things you're referencing (some of which are mostly perception) will change and we see near ubiquitous adoption of these technologies.

And what's going to make them change?

That there's always someone else competing for your money. There was a day when people didn't buy stuff on the internet over security concerns. You know, way back in the age of dinosaurs and stuff. But then someone figured out a brilliant way to make it more secure because they wanted it to be easier to take your money.

 

[footballnerd]

not just pulling an Android by being a cheap iOS clone.

didn't realize IOS was based on Linux

 

[Slapdash]

Watched the keynote finally and came away with a really good feeling about what they are doing with this product in the bigger picture of the Windows world. The device itself comes across as very useful and cool. More importantly with the launch of Windows 8 a developer can potentially write one app that would be avaliable for sale on 4 different platforms including Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro for PC or Surface, and XBox. There are at least 40 million Xbox users, maybe 10 million phone, and 100s of million Windows 7 users currently and 100s of million Windows users not on 7. If all this carries forward to Windows 8 then any one App can potentially be sold to a much larger audience then Apple can provide now or even in the near future. It's resonable to think that the number could be a 1/2 billion users worldwide in the relatively short future. This market won't be ignored and an explosion of Apps is sure to happen.

It is promising but I think they need to make Windows 8 on the desktop able to run without the Metro UI to avoid losing marketshare.

 

[The Commish]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

That all of the things you're referencing (some of which are mostly perception) will change and we see near ubiquitous adoption of these technologies.

And what's going to make them change?

That there's always someone else competing for your money. There was a day when people didn't buy stuff on the internet over security concerns. You know, way back in the age of dinosaurs and stuff. But then someone figured out a brilliant way to make it more secure because they wanted it to be easier to take your money.

No...the ones that already have a product out there that isn't secure and people don't seem to care...what's going to make those companies change?

 

[DrJ]

As far was which providers, that depends on your goals. Places like AT&T are starting to offer cloud services. Verizon has a vCloud powered Cloud. If we don't trust them to store our data, why are we trusting them to carry so much of the data in this country from a network perspective? Maybe we should all run our own independent cell phone carriers too? Run your own network between your sites. At a certain point you need to trust 3rd party organizations to be capable of handling and providing the security for your data. We do it every day in other industries.

Have you seen federal regulations around cloud security?

I'm not a lawyer. What federal regulations prevent them from misusing your data as it passes through their network? And why wouldn't this apply to any electronic communications?

There are very few standards/regulations established. That's the point I was trying to make. So for every company you can show me who does things the correct way, I can show you 10 that are not safe at all, and a few of them are the more popular options. I'm not saying they can't change. I'm not saying they won't change. I'm not saying there aren't safe options. I'm simply speaking to the current state of where things are with some of the more popular implementations.

I'm saying it's not a matter of if - it's simply a matter of when. And that timeframe is a lot shorter than many people want to realize. In the context of this device, which spawned the conversation, whether it runs Windows or IOS or whatever isn't going to matter anymore. Very soon.

What's not a matter of if but when?

That all of the things you're referencing (some of which are mostly perception) will change and we see near ubiquitous adoption of these technologies.

And what's going to make them change?

That there's always someone else competing for your money. There was a day when people didn't buy stuff on the internet over security concerns. You know, way back in the age of dinosaurs and stuff. But then someone figured out a brilliant way to make it more secure because they wanted it to be easier to take your money.

No...the ones that already have a product out there that isn't secure and people don't seem to care...what's going to make those companies change?

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

 

[mattdaddy]

Watched the keynote finally and came away with a really good feeling about what they are doing with this product in the bigger picture of the Windows world. The device itself comes across as very useful and cool. More importantly with the launch of Windows 8 a developer can potentially write one app that would be avaliable for sale on 4 different platforms including Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro for PC or Surface, and XBox. There are at least 40 million Xbox users, maybe 10 million phone, and 100s of million Windows 7 users currently and 100s of million Windows users not on 7. If all this carries forward to Windows 8 then any one App can potentially be sold to a much larger audience then Apple can provide now or even in the near future. It's resonable to think that the number could be a 1/2 billion users worldwide in the relatively short future. This market won't be ignored and an explosion of Apps is sure to happen.

It is promising but I think they need to make Windows 8 on the desktop able to run without the Metro UI to avoid losing marketshare.

Download the Windows 8 preview. You can switch back and forth between Classic (looks like Windows 7) and Metro fairly easily. It will take some time to get it onto as many desktops as 7 but when the dam breaks the holdouts on 7 will probably be converting alongside the current 7 users and there will just be a huge influx of users. That might even be Windows 9 for all I know but it seems inevitable with the way they are going.

 

[The Commish]

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

Use the phrases you want. I think you understand my question. What's the motivation to change from what they have now if people aren't calling for it?

 

[DrJ]

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

Use the phrases you want. I think you understand my question. What's the motivation to change from what they have now if people aren't calling for it?

People are calling for it to some degree. Just not as much as functionality.

 

[DrJ]

And really, I still think you're ignoring the fact that many of these solutions are more secure than the alternative. I'm guessing you're probably defining security very narrowly, and aren't considering aspects like availability and integrity, which are also important along with simply confidentiality. A cloud based solution that exposed all of your data to the internet could be preferable from a security perspective if confidentiality wasn't important and your main goal was simply availability. A web site is an example on the extreme end of this. People have had 3rd parties host their websites forever - because they're able to provide more security (availability, integrity, and in some cases even confidentiality) than the user who has no technical ability in these areas and a limited budget could provide for themselves.

I think you've just thrown out general accusations and haven't really demonstrated what security issues you're most concerned about and the level of risk they really present. Or considered positives in other areas (security and financial) that more than offset these concerns.

 

[Slapdash]

Watched the keynote finally and came away with a really good feeling about what they are doing with this product in the bigger picture of the Windows world. The device itself comes across as very useful and cool. More importantly with the launch of Windows 8 a developer can potentially write one app that would be avaliable for sale on 4 different platforms including Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro for PC or Surface, and XBox. There are at least 40 million Xbox users, maybe 10 million phone, and 100s of million Windows 7 users currently and 100s of million Windows users not on 7. If all this carries forward to Windows 8 then any one App can potentially be sold to a much larger audience then Apple can provide now or even in the near future. It's resonable to think that the number could be a 1/2 billion users worldwide in the relatively short future. This market won't be ignored and an explosion of Apps is sure to happen.

It is promising but I think they need to make Windows 8 on the desktop able to run without the Metro UI to avoid losing marketshare.

Download the Windows 8 preview. You can switch back and forth between Classic (looks like Windows 7) and Metro fairly easily. It will take some time to get it onto as many desktops as 7 but when the dam breaks the holdouts on 7 will probably be converting alongside the current 7 users and there will just be a huge influx of users. That might even be Windows 9 for all I know but it seems inevitable with the way they are going.

I'll check it out but from what I've read it sounds like there are many instances where you are forced into using Metro and prevented from organizing the windows on your screen.We're just upgrading from XP to Windows 7 my office. The tech guys are still hesitant to put my desktop on 7 because they are really worried about compatibility issues with all our proprietary software.

 

[The Commish]

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

Use the phrases you want. I think you understand my question. What's the motivation to change from what they have now if people aren't calling for it?

People are calling for it to some degree. Just not as much as functionality.

Not enough for them to change...you even admit this much. Not sure why you're trying so hard not to answer the question.

 

[DrJ]

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

Use the phrases you want. I think you understand my question. What's the motivation to change from what they have now if people aren't calling for it?

People are calling for it to some degree. Just not as much as functionality.

Not enough for them to change...you even admit this much. Not sure why you're trying so hard not to answer the question.

I am answering the question - you don't like the answer and aren't willing to accept it.

 

[The Commish]

And really, I still think you're ignoring the fact that many of these solutions are more secure than the alternative. I'm guessing you're probably defining security very narrowly, and aren't considering aspects like availability and integrity, which are also important along with simply confidentiality. A cloud based solution that exposed all of your data to the internet could be preferable from a security perspective if confidentiality wasn't important and your main goal was simply availability. I think you've just thrown out general accusations and haven't really demonstrated what security issues you're most concerned about and the level of risk they really present.

Of course I have. Data transmission security is probably the highest order of concern with a set up like the one's I have mentioned. I said that pages ago. I've not made a single accusation though, so I'm not sure where that came from.

 

[The Commish]

Don't care was probably a little strong - is lower on their priority list than functionality is probably more accurate. All companies work towards security in some extent. Apple has effectively marketed their product as more secure, which they wouldn't bother doing if people didn't care in the slightest. But functionality will always win - because the average user's top priority is the device making their life easier. Like any other tool we spend money on.

Use the phrases you want. I think you understand my question. What's the motivation to change from what they have now if people aren't calling for it?

People are calling for it to some degree. Just not as much as functionality.

Not enough for them to change...you even admit this much. Not sure why you're trying so hard not to answer the question.

I am answering the question - you don't like the answer and aren't willing to accept it.

Sorry...what's the motivation again? I missed it I guess.

 

[DrJ]

And really, I still think you're ignoring the fact that many of these solutions are more secure than the alternative. I'm guessing you're probably defining security very narrowly, and aren't considering aspects like availability and integrity, which are also important along with simply confidentiality. A cloud based solution that exposed all of your data to the internet could be preferable from a security perspective if confidentiality wasn't important and your main goal was simply availability. I think you've just thrown out general accusations and haven't really demonstrated what security issues you're most concerned about and the level of risk they really present.

Of course I have. Data transmission security is probably the highest order of concern with a set up like the one's I have mentioned. I said that pages ago. I've not made a single accusation though, so I'm not sure where that came from.

You've accused the solutions of having "faux security" "lax security" "no security" and all sorts of things. I didn't say personal accusation. This is going nowhere, I'm just going to bow out of the conversation.

 

[The Commish]

And really, I still think you're ignoring the fact that many of these solutions are more secure than the alternative. I'm guessing you're probably defining security very narrowly, and aren't considering aspects like availability and integrity, which are also important along with simply confidentiality. A cloud based solution that exposed all of your data to the internet could be preferable from a security perspective if confidentiality wasn't important and your main goal was simply availability. I think you've just thrown out general accusations and haven't really demonstrated what security issues you're most concerned about and the level of risk they really present.

Of course I have. Data transmission security is probably the highest order of concern with a set up like the one's I have mentioned. I said that pages ago. I've not made a single accusation though, so I'm not sure where that came from.

You've accused the solutions of having "faux security" "lax security" "no security" and all sorts of things. I didn't say personal accusation. This is going nowhere, I'm just going to bow out of the conversation.

Would you consider a data transmission non ssl and/or no cert required to be "secure"?

 

[DrJ]

And really, I still think you're ignoring the fact that many of these solutions are more secure than the alternative. I'm guessing you're probably defining security very narrowly, and aren't considering aspects like availability and integrity, which are also important along with simply confidentiality. A cloud based solution that exposed all of your data to the internet could be preferable from a security perspective if confidentiality wasn't important and your main goal was simply availability. I think you've just thrown out general accusations and haven't really demonstrated what security issues you're most concerned about and the level of risk they really present.

Of course I have. Data transmission security is probably the highest order of concern with a set up like the one's I have mentioned. I said that pages ago. I've not made a single accusation though, so I'm not sure where that came from.

You've accused the solutions of having "faux security" "lax security" "no security" and all sorts of things. I didn't say personal accusation. This is going nowhere, I'm just going to bow out of the conversation.

Would you consider a data transmission non ssl and/or no cert required to be "secure"?

Which services transmit your information in clear text?