5 ms·
This is sort of what I mean. The fact that one vendor is bad at security has no particular bearing on if their competition is better, or if there's a more secur
by noirbot 3y ago
This is sort of what I mean. The fact that one vendor is bad at security has no particular bearing on if their competition is better, or if there's a more secure option you could run internally.
Sure, we've learned that Azure is less secure than we may have thought last week, but is AWS or GCP better? Or have they just not been uncovered for their issues yet? Or maybe they had their big security issue last year. Once everyone's had a big problem, what do you do? Make up some scoring system and keep re-migrating your company to whoever currently has the lowest "security mistakes" score?
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoTake a lesson from the Lock Picking Lawyer. You don't need three impervious locks, two AirTags, and a Klaxon alarm on your bicycle, you only need a stronger lock than everyone else parked next to you. And when a bear attacks you and your buddy, you don't need to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun your buddy. On second thought, I'm not sure any of this philosophically applies to Cybersecurity, given the low cost of entry, stealth and anonymity, and the ability to mount massively parallel, unattended attacks.
- brightlancer 3y agoI think the bigger difference is between targets: the US government is going to be targeted by a ton of folks who don't care about me or you or most folks on HN, even if US gov security is tougher than a random individual's.
- tormeh 3y ago> is AWS or GCP better? Yes, they are.