David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

The World's Most Dangerous Technology  
# Tuesday, July 30, 2013
 
What is the world's most dangerous technology? Is it, say, nuclear weapons? Or maybe bio-engineered food?

No. The world's most dangerous technology is Windows Update.

Think about it. Every Patch Tuesday, Microsoft puts whatever code it wants directly into your operating system. While many organizations test updates to make sure they don't break anything, how many check to make sure that an update doesn't steal sensitive data off your disk? Pretty much nobody.

Suppose the government of North Korea announced tomorrow that they'd acquired all of the assets of the Microsoft Corporation. What would we do? The answer is clear: We'd all turn off Windows Update immediately. We would never trust Kim Jong-un with this power. Yet we do trust Microsoft, mostly without even thinking about it.

Remember this the next time an enterprise IT leader tells you that he or she will never trust public cloud platforms. The level of trust that enterprises already have in Microsoft far exceeds what Windows Azure or another cloud platform asks of them.

Why do we trust Windows Update? Two reasons: It provides real benefits, and it's proven to be trustworthy over time. As long as these same two things are true of public cloud platforms--and they are so far--we'll also learn to trust them.

We're not there yet, but the day when trusting a public cloud platform is as unremarkable as trusting Windows Update is coming.


4 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Google glass scares me, too many attack vectors
 

This is awesome!
 

"We're not there yet, but the day when trusting a public cloud platform is as unremarkable as trusting Windows Update is coming."

You've laid out a great brief argument for the eventual irrelevance of data security/confidentiality as a barrier to public cloud adoption.

But this argument alone doesn't convince my that trusting a cloud platform will be as unremarkable as trusting Windows Update.

1. Microsoft updates can be deployed pre-production by individual organizations to evaluate service availability risk. (You concede this at the beginning of the post.) A lot of thought and design has to go into this aspect of the public cloud and mitigating risk. Its a young, young platform.
2. Data ownership issues aside (from security/confidentiality) must be confidently resolved. When a given service shuts down, what happens to the subscriber data? Who controls what happens to ALL copies of the data, including the cold storage that was previously maintained for regulatory compliance and litigation risk? This is also a huge area that must mature as the platform matures.

Additional rambling and links to information about 9 Amazon EC2 service outages from 2010 through 2012.
http://sql-sasquatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and.html
 

On point 1, remember that IaaS clouds just run ordinary Windows Server, which gets patched in the usual way. This isn't young--we have lots of experience doing this.

On point 2, data ownership is a contractual issue. From what I've seen, the big providers (and their customers) have this down: Data belongs to the customer, full stop, and the provider must scrub away all traces of removed data. We have to trust them to actually do this, of course, and perhaps we'll one day see regulation here. But for now, I don't see this issue come up much--the contracts are clear.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home