Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Twisted, post: 653133"] Mix it, yes; get your own to do something against your will, less easily, depending on how much access they have. I suppose given some scenarios (such as the possibility of the VM being hostile?) the only really surefire security is to centralize the most mission-critical stuff on specific hardware, and make all sensitive transactions go through that hardware, keep all private keys other than individual user keys there, and password hashes, and ... -- control that hardware physically (locked doors), encryption to/from it, thorough audit of all code running on it, and so forth, and the damage that can be done without compromising that hardware or the software running on it may be limitable. The other security ultimate is the polar opposite: hugely decentralized, distributed systems nobody can completely kill or even seriously fragment without dedicating a lot of resources. Like the Internet itself, which runs almost wholly on untrusted code, and where all the various people in positions of responsibility have vested, but parochal, interests, and parochial access. I guess it's also like democracy vs. police state -- which is squeaky clean and tidy, and which actually runs smoothly and efficiently for a long time? Ultimately, the only real security may be that had by not having all one's eggs in one basket. The most robust systems have failover and distributed networks in them, computerized or otherwise, rather than being micromanaged in an attempt to make them never fail. Failure is handled, even attacks, rather than any attempt being made to 100% prevent them. Which may be considered a comment on things in general, or on Bush and the Patriot Act and War on Terror, or on computers, or Chinese censorship, or anything else you please, I guess. [/QUOTE]

Verification