>> As long as you trust them, Google can probably keep the systems more >> secure than a bunch of random sysadmins who may or may not have >> training ... > That right there is a heck of a point.
True - but it's also semi-irrelevant. Whether Google *can* is not nearly as important as whether Google *will*. (The former is necessary but by no means sufficient for the latter.) Given all the other problems they have exhibited, I doubt they will. And, given how high-profile a target they would make, I much prefer to trust in local admins, who, while they may make more mistakes than Google, will make different mistakes from the next site over. This venture of Google's centralizes sysadmin, turning it into a monoculture - and monocultures have caused trouble just about everywhere they've occurred; I expect this to be no different. The real problem is that even if Google _does_ run these systems more securely than (say) LA's own sysadmins, one crack means *everyone's* security is blown, not just LA's. That's the monoculture aspect. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
