this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
22 points (82.4% liked)

Technology

58999 readers
4211 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
22
Keep Tier-One Applications Out of Virtual Environments (www.darkreading.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by redfox@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

After reading this article, I had a few dissenting thoughts, maybe someone will provide their perspective?

The article suggests not running critical workloads virtually based on a failure scenario of the hosting environment (such as ransomware on hypervisor).

That does allow using the 'all your eggs in one basket' phrase, so I agree that running at least one instance of a service physically could be justified, but threat actors will be trying to time execution of attacks against both if possible. Adding complexity works both ways here.

I don't really agree with the comments about not patching however. The premise that the physical workload or instance would be patched or updated more than the virtual one seems unrelated. A hesitance to patch systems is more about up time vs downtime vs breaking vs risk in my opinion.

Is your organization running critical workloads virtual like anything else, combination physical and virtual, or combination of all previous plus cloud solutions (off prem)?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Most organizations will avoid patching due to the downtime alone, instead using other mitigations to avoid exploitation. 

If you can't patch because of downtime, maybe you are cheaping out too much on redundancy?

[–] PiJiNWiNg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

That immediately stuck out to me as well, what a lame excuse not to patch. I've been in IT for a while now, and I've never worked in any shop that would let that slide.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that's pretty risky for this point in time.

I guess the MBA people look at total cost of revenue/reputation loss for things like ransomware recovery, restoration of backups vs the cost of making their IT systems resilient?

Personally, I don't think so (in many cases) or they'd spend more money on planning/resilience.