flat assembler
> Heap > Cloud computing. Who is in control?Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
| Author |
|
|
Yeah, if it is free then no one can really complain. And that is all the more reason not to start relying on it too much. If it is free then Google (or MS, Yahoo, mom-and-pop-email, whoever) may decide at any time to cease to offer it.
|
|||
02 Sep 2009, 19:07 |
|
|
Well, the US power grid doesn't store information, unless you're storing it on a volatile ramdisk which goes poof once power goes down (and you don't have UPS or batteries or anything)
 |
|||
|
02 Sep 2009, 19:11 |
|
|
It powers stuff that stores information.. and even stuff that directly sustains human lives.. >_>
Sure it's possible to set up a generator.. in the same way that it's possible to run your own mail server if Gmail goes down. Not a good solution though. If there are lots of alternatives, or if the service never goes down, no problem. But when there is only one provider of something, and that provider is unreliable, there is a problem! |
|||
|
02 Sep 2009, 20:20 |
|
|
03 Sep 2009, 12:00 |
|
|
Hmm indeed. I don't know if I understand it correctly, but seems like when you want to find a keyword "mail" in "I have your e-mail stored on my HDD", then it is easy to do it on encrypted string as well. Its just the "mail" must be encrypted the same way.
A simple example (encryption is just CHAR+1): strstr ("nbjm", "J!ibwf!zpvs!f.nbjm!tupsfe!po!nz!IEE") Of course it gets a little more interesting so its a "Hmm" indeed  |
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 12:27 |
|
|
Azu wrote: It powers stuff that stores information.. If Google goes down, all I have to do is get a new mail address. If my power company goes down, I can move somewhere else, and my data will still be readable. But if you had important stuff on Google, tough luck. Yes I can also make mistakes and/or damage my data, but it's my responsibility and I feel MUCH better that way than someone else's responsibility (e.g: Google) to do with MY data. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:27 |
|
|
Borsuc wrote:
|
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:31 |
|
|
Because breaking the basket isn't the only problem. Taking a peek into it is also.
|
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:35 |
|
|
If that's a problem you should encrypt your data. In situations where Google could be subpoenaed for your data, stuff in your own house is going to be just as vulnerable.
|
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:41 |
|
|
Except that no one bothers to target a guy that goes with the nickname Borsuc on FASM board, unless they know me personally or have something with me personally.
_________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:43 |
|
|
Better safe than sorry.
|
|||
|
03 Sep 2009, 16:46 |
|
|
I just found this nice article:
... When a computer is within your network, you can protect it with other security systems such as firewalls and IDSs. You can build a resilient system that works even if those vendors you have to trust may not be as trustworthy as you like. With any outsourcing model, whether it be cloud computing or something else, you can't. You have to trust your outsourcer completely. You not only have to trust the outsourcer's security, but its reliability, its availability, and its business continuity. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 11:32 |
|
|
I just found this nice sentence:
Azu wrote: If that's a problem you should encrypt your data. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 11:34 |
|
|
i was thinking about a computer model, where, we don't need to store anything at all, everything is stored inside that super computer, we are all 24x7 high speed connected to it, and we just need a terminal.
of course, not too long in future, we all would be high speed connected with all devices & data & all kinds of interface. hmm, i was thinking about legalizing computer warfare. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 11:56 |
|
|
How can you have computer warfare when it's impossible for them to break whatever rules they have in place?
It's not like real life where if there is a law that says "don't do X" you can do it anyways. Computers are only physically capable of doing whatever they are programmed to do. So unless it is programmed to accept certain commands from outside sources, there is no way any other computer can touch it. They are as perfect as we make them. All you have to do to make a computer 100% immune to all attacks from other computers is program it to disregard communications from other computers. They can't break the rules put in place in them. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 12:10 |
|
|
Azu wrote: Computers are only physically capable of doing whatever they are programmed to do. Azu wrote: So unless it is programmed to accept certain commands from outside sources, there is no way any other computer can touch it. They are as perfect as we make them Azu wrote: All you have to do to make a computer 100% immune to all attacks from other computers is program it to disregard communications from other computers. They can't break the rules put in place in them. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 12:17 |
|
|
revolution wrote:
revolution wrote:
revolution wrote:
If you want certain interaction with other computers, allow it as the exception, rather then allowing all interaction by default and making exceptions for "bad" things. As long as you don't leave any legal loopholes it will be perfectly secure no matter what. E.G. don't let other computers modify its instructions (buffer overflows are a common loophole that allow this). It can't break the laws in place for it, but those laws could be changed if allow it. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2009, 12:24 |
|
|
Let's hope none of you were affected by the Sidekick failure:
Sidekick users have been without some of their services for days, and have just been told by the company, T-Mobile, that for some users their data may be lost forever due to a server error at Microsoft subsidiary, Danger. |
|||
|
12 Oct 2009, 11:36 |
|
|
revolution wrote: Let's hope none of you were affected by the Sidekick failure: |
|||
|
12 Oct 2009, 18:02 |
|
|
Azu wrote: In the real world, that is the easiest way to make a computer completely invulnerable to attack from other computers. 
Wonder what you'll come up with next time instead of blaming Microsoft or whoever runs the cloud. Heads up: people like that manage your data, it's people like M$ (or others who "make mistakes") that you entrust your data to. There's no "perfect cloud" because we would have "perfect desktops" much sooner. There are too many levels of exploitation, even a old-skool infiltration is possible if the cloud is very big. On the other hand, while my security at home is much weaker probably, terrorists or crackers won't target it. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
12 Oct 2009, 18:21 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|