Nick Holland wrote: > what's changed? > Layering? Nope. > Crappy programming? Nope. > Better hardware? not really. > Features-before-security? Nope.
Good points. The goals of virtualization are, easy management, power savings, quick provisioning and deployment, redundancy, etc. When you talk about security and virtualization at the guest level, the prevailing attitude is, "If it gets hacked, we'll just restore it from a known good snapshot... problem solved." I don't hear much talk at all about the host machine and security (the real server that hosts all the pretend servers is just assumed to be OK). There just seems to be a lot of trust in the vendors. Brad > Lots new features, though. > And they fixed a few bugs AFTER they were brought to the vendor's > attention. Reactive at its best. You think they FIXED more bugs than > they added with the new features? > > I think the virtualization products have proven their attitude towards > security and correctness. If something changed, it is theirs to > prove...and then, you still have the complexity issue. A more complex > system is unlikely to be more secure or more reliable than a simple system. > > Nick.
