2007/10/25, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At 05:08 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote: > >I finally get it... > > > >LEE! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS!!!!!
[+] > you mean security from those bad > guys, apparently you are talking about security from the > damn sheep who couldn't break the system if their lives > depended on it so they don't even try. [+] > if you take security in the context of people trying > to break the system (and we always are, fuck the sheep) ROTFL > Beautiful! I concur ;) You just don't get it, do you ? Maybe you understand the word 'security' in a some different way that others here. Security is like a chain. You wrote about 'viewpoint'. Your 'viewpoint' - 'application domain' is just one link in this chain. People here are thinking about whole chain. Virtualization in theory may strengthen this 'chain'. But, in reality it makes whole 'chain' weaker. That's because you add one link 'application domain separation' (which is OK), but you automatically *have* to add another link 'VM implementation bugs'. The latter make this 'chain' weaker that it is without it. How much worse is it ? That's another question. I use VMware ESX and IBM pSeries virtualization products. The first is unacceptable for mission critical tasks the latter is (for my specific 'chain' ) You clearly are not a security expert, so please, do not make statements as one. Piotr Kapczuk
