|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: One in four companies have no significant IP.
You can also have on-premises cloud.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the "cloud" is just a fancy name for a LAN, the data on the "cloud" are typically accessible from outside the company.
If it's accessible from outside the company (even with security mechanisms in place), it can leak. If you have significant IP, you don't store it where it can leak.
The OP referred to companies that are going 100% to the "cloud". I do not claim that there are no use cases where using the "cloud" makes sense; I do claim that there are no use cases where you should put sensitive IP on the "cloud".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: One in four companies have no significant IP.
... or their managers are idiots Moving to the cloud means you either have no significant IP or you are an idiot? Care to expound on that ignorant statement?
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought his statement was self-explanatory.
There is a constant pendulum between centralized and distributed. Mainframes, workstations, servers, desktops, the cloud. Every swing of the pendulum touted as a brilliant innovation. It is insufferably tedious techno-marketing codswallop.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: It is insufferably tedious techno-marketing codswallop. Actually, there is real benefit in moving to the cloud. Especially for small businesses.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Undoubtedly there are benefits for small businesses, but I don't see it as being any more innovative than third-party website hosting.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean that putting your IP on the cloud is begging for it to leak. Any data that are on a server that does not belong to you and is not physically secured by you does not really belong to you.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I mean that putting your IP on the cloud is begging for it to leak. You seem to be assuming that a server protected by teams and teams of security experts at Amazon or Microsoft is much more vulernable than the one in your closet protected by your boss's nephew who "knows computers."
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
The threat surface for Amazon et al. is greater than the threat surface for a server on a LAN.
A "cloud" server at Amazon et al. has to be accessible by the intended users. That means that it must be visible to, and potentially accessible to, others on the same network, which in this case is the entire internet. This is true even if there is a portal which regulates access to your server; if it is accessible to you, it may be accessible to others.
A local server in your office should only be accessible to, and visible to, computers on the same network, i.e. those on your company's LAN. it is therefore possible to (for example) configure your firewall to block all traffic to/from the internet from/to your server.
I am not ignoring the possibility of accessing the server via one of the workstations in the company. This is likely to be a problem no matter where the server is situated, and is out of scope for this discussion.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: The threat surface for Amazon et al. is greater than the threat surface for a server on a LAN.
A "cloud" server at Amazon et al. has to be accessible by the intended users. That means that it must be visible to, and potentially accessible to, others on the same network, which in this case is the entire internet. This is true even if there is a portal which regulates access to your server; if it is accessible to you, it may be accessible to others. True. There are pros and cons for going to cloud. If they were all pros, everyone would do it. If they were all cons, no one would do it. But each company will have to assess the pros vs cons. But to say someone is stupid for moving to the cloud is in itself a stupid statement.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: configure your firewall to block all traffic to/from the internet from/to your server. You can still do this in the cloud.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
The Insider News - Microsoft: These hackers got from a broken password to full control of a network - in just days[^]
The Insider News - Oracle’s BlueKai tracks you across the web. That data spilled online[^]
The Insider News - Cryptojackers hijack powerful machine-learning clusters in Microsoft’s Azure[^]
And that only in two weeks.
I don't argue that their security is bad, it is for sure better than what I would be able to bring up. But being that big makes them more appetible target for "manual hacking".
If you are capable to at least stop automated attacks, I think being a small target can be a good protection too.
On the other hand (ok, maybe you yes because you are in the US but...) there is no worldwide 100% certainty that you won't get "cut off" service, like ADOBE did with that Latinamerica country some months ago. OK, access was granted relatively soon again, but anyways...
If you have your own server, they might get you offline too, but at least you still have your data. You only need to find another provider and done.
As a final note:
I don't say cloud is bad or good.
I see its advantages. But it has its disadvantages too.
If you inform yourself good enough and you take your own decission... do what you want / fit you best.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are still using System.Data.SqlClient, you just have to replace the old library with the new one, as it is a true drop-in replacement. All you code will still work as before. But it will be more future-proof. Just like it always was, but different
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: as it is a true drop-in replacement. All you code will still work as before. That's what they say about the windows update too...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch!
So true, though.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, hey, hey, don't mock those new icons!
|
|
|
|
|
The team describes its technology as similar to the art of paper cutting, but a much smaller scale. Taping them back together may take a while
modified 22-Jun-20 16:35pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to repair the link...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed, thank you.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome.
BTW interesting read. But I suppose it will get a while until the can really reproduce it in more "conventional" conditions
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but it did strike me as a simple solution (as far as nano-stuff goes anyway). So, perhaps it may be able to "scale" to non-lab situations?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: perhaps it may be able to "scale" to non-lab situations? I hope so, that has potential to be a game changer. Not only in nano-electronics, it might get used in materials structures and other stuff too (if I am not misunderstanding it).
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 23-Jun-20 7:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
Amid the many details about this new hardware and plan was mention of the Developer Transition Kit (DTK), a product that will help developers build and test their Universal 2 apps for use with the new systems. Buy the SDK, get a free computer! (for a while)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: get a free computer! (for a while) Probably until the go past the alpha status and then you have to buy the new computer for 3x times the normal price.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly laughed at it at the time, but Steve Ballmer's 'Developer' rant is something Apple is sorely missing (with their 32 bit apps now worthless, and this coming C****** F***).
|
|
|
|
|
For $500, we'll throw in a BeagleBoard! (But it says Mac on it, so it's worth millions!)
|
|
|
|