3 ms·

To people who purchase their systems and run single tenant on metal. To cloud providers providing shared infrastructure their lunch got ate a bit here.

Bartweiss 7y ago
Between side-channel attacks and the steady improvement in rowhammer techniques, the mantra of "there is no cloud, just someone else's computer" deserves a renaissance. Tech promoters have spent a lot of time and energy explaining that anyone saying that is just an idiot who doesn't understand that cloud is the future (e.g. 1, 2). But the basic insight was never wrong, and the people saying it knew just fine what they were talking about. 'The cloud' means giving up physical-layer control, essentially by definition. That's a real tradeoff people ought to make consciously, and it's one that lost some ground lately. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-saying-the-cloud-is-just-someone-elses-computer-because-its-not/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-saying-the-cloud-is-just-... [2] https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-cloud-really-just-someone-elses-computer/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-cloud-really-jus...
- fpoling 7y ago
  With a dedicated server one can have have the same isolation in a cloud as with a server in a basement.
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    I think that's just a question of how "cloud" is defined. Certainly a server in a datacenter can be as isolated as a server in the basement. And unless your threat model involves governments, a reputable hosting company having physical access to the box shouldn't be much scarier than having it in your office. But lots of people (including those cloud-hyping articles I linked) claim that dedicated servers, even with virtualization, are just "remote hosting". Their standard for 'cloud' is basically "computing as a utility", with on-demand provisioning and pooled resources. I know some huge companies have attempted "private clouds" that provision on-demand from within a dedicated hardware pool, but I think most smaller projects have to choose between on-demand and dedicated.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

Bartweiss 7y ago

Between side-channel attacks and the steady improvement in rowhammer techniques, the mantra of "there is no cloud, just someone else's computer" deserves a renaissance. Tech promoters have spent a lot of time and energy explaining that anyone saying that is just an idiot who doesn't understand that cloud is the future (e.g. 1, 2). But the basic insight was never wrong, and the people saying it knew just fine what they were talking about. 'The cloud' means giving up physical-layer control, essentially by definition. That's a real tradeoff people ought to make consciously, and it's one that lost some ground lately. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-saying-the-cloud-is-just-someone-elses-computer-because-its-not/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-saying-the-cloud-is-just-... [2] https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-cloud-really-just-someone-elses-computer/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-cloud-really-jus...

fpoling 7y ago
With a dedicated server one can have have the same isolation in a cloud as with a server in a basement.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  I think that's just a question of how "cloud" is defined. Certainly a server in a datacenter can be as isolated as a server in the basement. And unless your threat model involves governments, a reputable hosting company having physical access to the box shouldn't be much scarier than having it in your office. But lots of people (including those cloud-hyping articles I linked) claim that dedicated servers, even with virtualization, are just "remote hosting". Their standard for 'cloud' is basically "computing as a utility", with on-demand provisioning and pooled resources. I know some huge companies have attempted "private clouds" that provision on-demand from within a dedicated hardware pool, but I think most smaller projects have to choose between on-demand and dedicated.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]