At 03:09 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
Quite frankly, I tire of your dumb-ass attitude. This was VERY ON TOPIC.
Indeed it is! I also tire of the dumb replies that don't have any
relationship to the original subject.
Security for the "applecation domain" is a function of the level of
vulnerability in the VM. If the VM is vulnerable, the "application domain"
does not have an ice cubes chance in hell of being secure. So security of
the VM is VERY on topic. Because you stated:
"Virtualization provides near absolute security"
The fact that a guest is running in a virtual environment provides NO
extra protection to the users or the
applications of THAT INDIVIDUAL GUEST.
Certainly! That is not the point, however. The point is that users of OTHER
'application domains' have better security with a VM (or one of the other
approaches discussed) because THEIR environment has no ability to interact
with the OTHER environments. The digression into VM vs. separate machine
vs. compoud vulnerabilities is totally tangent to the original topic, and,
while educational, is certainly no longer productive at this time.
I strongly suggest that we all retire with a lot of good information on
vulnerabilities and an agreement that there are different methods for
addressing security problems.
Lee
