3 ms·
If one is already running only "verified" (attested) code (with a read-only partition), diskless doesn't buy you much? Android, for example, does this: The syst
by ignoramous 3y ago
If one is already running only "verified" (attested) code (with a read-only partition), diskless doesn't buy you much? Android, for example, does this: The system partition where the OS is remains immutable unless there's a signed update (or the bootloader is "unlocked").
- ziddoap 3y agoThey briefly explain some of the reasoning here: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/1/12/diskless-infrastructure-beta-system-transparency-stboot https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/1/12/diskless-infrastructur... >If the computer is powered off, moved or confiscated, there is no data to retrieve. >We get the operational benefits of having fewer breakable parts. Disks are among the components that break often. Therefore, switching away from them makes our infrastructure more reliable. >The operational tasks of setting up and upgrading package versions on servers become faster and easier. >Running the system in RAM does not prevent the possibility of logging. It does however minimise the risk of accidentally storing something that can later be retrieved.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoYeah, I don't have their opsec concerns but I'm very tempted to try implementing something similar just to enforce having a stateless system (easier to manage IMO) with a nice bonus of no longer caring about host disk failures.