271–280 of 987 posts
I'm sure they had dozens of process heavy cybersecurity committees producing hundreds if not thousands of powerpoints and word documents outlining procedures and best practices over the last decade. There is this weird divide between the certified class of non-technical consultants and actual overworked and pushed to corner cut techs.
The data seems secure. No cyberthreat actors can access it now. Effective access control: check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> America is not a stable ally, and has a history of spying on friends America is a shitty ally for many reasons. But spying on allies isn’t one of them. Allies spy on allies to verify they’re still allies. This has been done throughout history and is basic competency in statecraft.
That doesn’t capture the full truth. Since Snowden, we have hard evidence the NSA has been snooping on foreign governments and citizens alike with the purpose of harvesting data and gathering intelligence, not just to verify their loyalty. No nation should trust the USA, especially not with their state secrets, if they can help it. Not that other countries are inherently more trustworthy, but the US is a known bad ac…
We also know this is also true for Russia, China and India. Being spied on is part of the cost of relying on external security guarantees.
> Not that other countries are inherently more trustworthy, but the US is a known bad actor
All regional and global powers are known bad actors. That said, Seoul is already in bed with Washington. Sending encrypted back-ups to an American company probably doesn't increase its threat cross section materially.
[stub for offtopicness]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no government should keep critical data on foreign cloud storage Primary? No. Back-up? These guys couldn’t provision a back-up for their on-site data. Why do you think it was competently encrypted?
They fucked up, that much is clear but the should not have kept that data on foreign cloud storage regardless. It's not like there are only two choices here.
Doesn't have to be an American provider (Though anyone else probably increases Seoul's security cross section. America is already its security guarantor, with tens of thousands of troops stationed in Korea.)
And doesn't have to be permanent. Ship encrypted copies to S3 while you get your hardenede-bunker domestic option constructed. Still beats the mess that's about to come for South Korea's population.
The government official who insisted that commercial AWS/GCP/Azure couldn't possibly be trusted with keeping the information will be keeping their head low for a few days then... "The Interior Ministry explained that while most systems at the Daejeon data center are backed up daily to separate equipment within the same center and to a physically remote backup facility, the G-Drive’s structure did not allow for extern…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enemy country in the current geopolitical climate is an interesting take. Doesn't sound like a great idea to me tbh.
There are a lot of gray relations out there, but there’s almost no way you could morph the current US/SK relations to one of hostility; beyond a negligible minority of citizens in either being super vocal for some perceived slights.
Surely there must be something that's missing in translation? This feels like it simply can't be right.
Is this going to have a real impact in the near term? What kind of data are we’re talking about being permanently lost?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rightfully did not trust these companies. Sure what happened is a disaster for them, but you cant simply trust Amazon & Microsoft.
Why not? You can easily encrypt your data before sending it for storage on on S3, for example.
Sometimes sensitive data at the government level has a pretty long shelf life; you may want it to remain secret in 30, 50, 70 years.