> > Sounds good, but can't say I'm convinced on the security > part. I'm looking > > for really assuring words like "it's impossible to break > into" or "the jig > > is up for the attackers". > > If they made that claim, how could you trust anything they > said? The only way to make > such claims would be to make a completely unusable system. > Like not connected to a > network, like not even connected to a keyboard or mouse.
I'm talking about the real VM OS having code that can't be changed by an attacker. Whichever OS's the VM are virtual and disappear on reboot, so attacks that get through to them disappear on reboot as part of the VM proposition, but the base/real OS needs to be completely protected from change (yet still maintainable, thus the "boot into maintenance mode" for making changes part). Don't mean to suggest this will solve all the security problems out there, but I'm thinking it would be something better then paying extortion for protection against yesterday's attacks when it's tomorrow's attacks that matter. The industry has to get in front of this problem and out of catch-up mode. It seems to me that VM can be helpful here, but not if itself is vulnerable. The bigger part of this is that police have to track these bastards down and lock them up, otherwise they will just get better and better at what they do. It's far easier to destroy then build, so they have a leg up to start with. Bill > > Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/d4f4dbcf847a4f429429bd5f743d4...@bills ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
