See also
https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/02/ransomware_infection_credit_unions/
for an attack on a cloud IT provider.
My on-line access to the Federal Credit Union of my former employer
was affected by this attack. Rather than wait an unknown length of time
for the cloud IT provider to recover before they could even begin to
recover their own cloud system, they started rebuilding with a new cloud
provider. Their on-line access was unavailable for several weeks, but
only their on-line Internet access was affected. Handling of on-site
transactions was unaffected and telephone support was used to bridge the
gap in account Internet access.
I would suspect an incident like this for a provider of cloud servers
has a very serious, possibly fatal, financial impact. It certainly
illustrates why a company that is using cloud servers should never
entrust backups of their cloud virtual machines to the same service that
provides the virtual machines.
JC Ewing
On 2/11/24 22:30, Dave Beagle wrote:
One of the big drawbacks to non mainframe clouds is the ease with which they are
hacked. AWS & Azure are hacked pretty frequently.
https://www.securityweek.com/microsoft-cloud-hack-exposed-more-than-exchange-outlook-emails/
https://cybernews.com/security/amazon-cloud-loses-silver-lining/
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, February 11, 2024, 6:51 PM, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote:
With current technology, Z has the edge for I/O and RAS, but not for CPU.
What makes sense depends very much on the business and legal requirements.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Phil
Smith III <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 3:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Banks migrate from mainframes to AI-driven cloud tech
Shmuel wrote:
I was thinking of zCX as hosting containers
The process for deploying virtual machines in z/VM is different
although it also eliminates manual setup that used to be necessary.
i was trying to illustrated that the automation of deployment was not
limited to the cloud.
Ah! Gotcha. Sure, containers is containers is containers. But given the expense
of IBM zSystems MIPS, it's hard to envision overprovisioning for possible usage
spikes the way x86 clusters do. Yes, there's CoD, which is sort of the
forerunner to this elastic capacity, but not nearly as automated.
To be clear: I'm unconvinced that cloud elasticity is a particularly useful
capacity in most serious business use cases. Black Friday (heck, the whole
holiday season) maybe, but that's moderately predictable, and CoD or just plain
ol' capacity planning can deal with that.
Similarly, I'm unconvinced that zCX is meaningful other than as a "See, we can do stuff like
this too". I don't see folks embracing it significantly [yet--still relatively early days,
obviously). What I've seen is people going "Neat!" but then.what?
I do think that the management-by-magazine folks are all aTwitter (or is that
aX now?) about cloud capabilities because they think they will eliminate the
need for capacity management and thus save them money. My bet is maybe on the
first, no on the second. But I have nothing to support that other than my gut
based on experience. (And I had Thai food for lunch, so gut may be even less
reliable than usual!)
...
--
Joel C. Ewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
