4 ms·

So, we're in agreement that this sort of thing should 1) be paid for, 2) not readable by the provider, and 3) maintenance-free for the user. I still don't unde

by sjs382 8y ago

So, we're in agreement that this sort of thing should 1) be paid for, 2) not readable by the provider, and 3) maintenance-free for the user. I still don't understand why this is a hardware play. There are advantages to owning the hardware but none of those advantages seem to apply here. The hardware feels like a bit of an albatross.

garry 8y ago
If you want to truly control your data, you've got to control your hardware too. See: Lavabit.
- wmf 8y ago
  But going all the way to the end of that tradeoff is so expensive. It seems like a Helm VM would be 90% as secure and also 90% cheaper.
- sjs382 8y ago
  But with Helm, we don't control the hardware, do we?
jwilcoxson 8y ago
I don't see how we should automatically trust them because we "own" the hardware. If its not open source and able to be verified by third parties, what does it matter if we have the "keys"? $500 for proprietary hardware just seems odd considering the goal here.
bostonvaulter2 8y ago
How could it NOT be a hardware play? Then how else can you verify and trust that you know what code is running in some datacenter in who knows where?
- wmf 8y ago
  https://cloud.google.com/shielded-vm/ https://cloud.google.com/shielded-vm/ ?
- sjs382 8y ago
  It doesn't matter what code is running server side, as long as decryption happens client side and the keys are never transmitted to the server.