821–830 of 987 posts
Sir Humphrey: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstances like these.
Jim Hacker: (reading) This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967… Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No, a marvelous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.
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…
The issue here is not refusing to use a foreign third party. That makes sense. The issue is mandating the use of remote storage and not backing it up. That’s insane. It’s like the most basic amount of preparation you do. It’s recommended to even the smallest of companies specifically because a fire is a risk. That’s gross mismanagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Samsung's software is generally terrible; they're decent at hardware, not software.
I was going to say, Samsung anything immediately makes me assume the software is awful. With a dose of zero privacy, cloud enabled door-knob or something.
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…
You tack on the hours required to do it yourself (this includes the time you must spend actually restoring from the backups to verify integrity, anything less can not be trusted). You keep one copy in your safe, and another copy in a safety deposit box at the bank. Nobody ever has to know. It is inevitable that you will save your own ass, and theirs too.
Shit happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is not refusing to use a foreign third party. That makes sense. The issue is mandating the use of remote storage and not backing it up. That’s insane. It’s like the most basic amount of preparation you do. It’s recommended to even the smallest of companies specifically because a fire is a risk. That’s gross mismanagement.
Backups should be far away, too. Apparently some companies lost everything on 9/11 because their backups were in the other tower.
That's like storing lifeboats in the bilge section of the ship, so they won't get damaged by storms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of today, there's no way to prove the security of any available cryptosystem. Let me say that differently: for all we know, ALL currently available cryptosystems can be easily cracked by some unpublished techniques. The only sort-of exception to that requires quantum communication, which is nowhere near practicability on the scale required. The only evidence we have that the cryptography that we commonly use is ac…
One-time pad is provable secure. But it is not useful for backups, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funnily enough, Germany has laws for where you are allowed to store backups exactly due to these kinda issues. Fire, flood, earthquake, tornadoes, whatever you name, backups need to be stored with appropriate security in mind.
Germany, of course. Like my company needs government permission to store backups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you'd encrypt the data before uploading it to a third party, but there's no reason why that third party should be under control of a foreign government. South Korea has more than one data center they can store data inside of, there's no need to trust other governments sigh every byte of data you've gathered, even if there are no known backdoors or flaws in your encryption mechanism (which I'm sure some gove…
There is a reason that NIST recommends new encryption algorithms from time to time. If you get a copy of ALL government data, in 20 years you might be able to break encryption and get access to ALL government data from 20yr ago, no matter how classified they were, if they were stored in that cloud. Such data might still be valuable, because not all data is published after some period.
When the flops required to break an algo exceed the energy available on the planet, items are secure beyond any reasonable doubt.