3 ms·
I agree, the issue here is physical security. That's it. Now, there are some great arguments to be made that software security in those buildings should also
by horsawlarway 9y ago
I agree, the issue here is physical security. That's it.
Now, there are some great arguments to be made that software security in those buildings should also be improved, but that literally doesn't matter if someone has physical access. At best you're delaying.
Physical access trumps everything. There is no software on the planet that can prevent a determined attacker with physical access.
- brianwawok 9y agoAnd as mentioned above, this is silly to ignore software security. Software attacks are often far far amplified and harder to trace than their in person counterpart.
- horsawlarway 9y agoNo one is ignoring it... The whole freaking article is about companies paying specialists to see how secure their farms are. My issue is that the article glides past the "physical access" part to focus on the "scary cyber weapons" part. That's bullshit. If it was a remote exploit from an internet connected machine, sure: that's scary. This wasn't that.
- haltingthoughts 9y agoThe point is that things are connected. By physically accessing one machine you bring down not just one machine but the entire network. The importance of physical security just went up by a factor of the number of machines on the network. At some point you are going to have to focus on the network part of security. Getting physical access to one Google server shouldn't allow you to bring down all of Google.