3 ms·
"High assurance datacenter" High assurance my ass. Those don't go down unless there's a DDOS or catastrophic failure (often several). Then, they're right back u
by nickpsecurity 9y ago
"High assurance datacenter" High assurance my ass. Those don't go down unless there's a DDOS or catastrophic failure (often several). Then, they're right back up. People need to stop misusing this label. Another is "high-assurance" certs from vendors that get compromised or subverted easily. Only one high-assurance CA that I know of. It's not around for business reasons, though.
http://www.anthonyhall.org/c_by_c_secure_system.pdf http://www.anthonyhall.org/c_by_c_secure_system.pdf
- mort96 9y agoThe issue here doesn't seem that a data center went down, but that there was a bug which caused downtime.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoThe issue I brought up is nothing about it is high-assurance except maybe tamper-resistance on a HSM involved. It's a term abused in the certificate market a lot. An easy hint to tell is if it's a product developed slowly in a safe subset of C, Java, or Ada. Those have the tooling needed for highly-robust implementations. Then look at the OS to see if it's something extremely hardened or unusual (eg separation kernel RTOS). The protocols will be ultra-simple with a lot of high-availability and easy recovery. Almost no modern tooling will be in the TCB for configuration or deployment unless it's simple. Most of it isn't. I'm not seeing any of this in the reporting that made it here. Definitely not high-assurance. Likely compromised by high-end attackers either for specific targets or in some general way. It will help protect in its intended way against the rest, though. Enormously positive development. Just not high-assurance security at any level.