The most basic consideration in computer security has nothing to do with technology and computers. Do the people you need to keep out of the know need to know enough to come and break legs?
If so, don't bother encrypting. They may not just break legs. Dhu On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:48:33 -0600 [email protected] wrote: > Very true, filling your subterranean data server with angry hornets > certainly seems like a good idea but it's really not, most AC > maintenance contractors will charge you extra (usually per sting!). > > Chester T. Field > > And remember when I left all the meat out because I saw Mr. David Lynch “I’m > on TV” do it, > and he got on TV from doin’ it, and I did it and didn’t get on TV from doin’ > it? - Gandhi > > On 10/6/2014 at 1:37 PM, "Matti Karnaattu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>Yes, my goal is to secure the > >>infrastructure as much as possible. > > > >I don't know details but it sounds overly complex. And complexity > >may cause other issues, without any benefit for security. > > > >Example, you don't have to encrypt your whole hard disk if the hard > >disk is located in guarded bunker. But if you do that, it will > >increase > >security in theory but that may cause service outtage if you have > >to > >always locally type your crypt password if machine crashes. > > > >I would put this effort to ease maintainability, ease monitoring, > >use stateful firewall, deploy honeypot etc. and avoid complexity. > > -- Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.
