6 ms·

It does looks like OpenBSD team with its "hate" of virtualization was right all along

stephenr 13y ago
Right, because Amazon/etc === the sole use of virtualization? There couldn't possibly be any companies in the world running multiple VMs on hardware they solely use (either owned or rented).
rodgerd 13y ago
For certain values of right. I'll take the marginal risk of security vulnerabilities over the envrionmental damage of fabbing and powering datacentres full of 99% idle servers.
- mariusz79 13y ago
  How many of these server have no real purpose? So many of them host pointless websites, generate loads of useless data, or transfer tons of spam from one server to another. One badly written function, used on millions of computers that increase cpu usage by 1% more than it should will waste MWatts of power, yet nobody is worrying about that.. Thousands of new smartphone models released every year, and I don't hear people screaming about environmental damage. Want less environmental damage? Spend more time on efficient code, write everything in machine code, and don't comment on HN. After all to post one comment, how many server, switches, routers, computers need to be on? What a waste!
pedrocr 13y ago
This is only an issue if you're hosted together with the attacker, which is indeed an issue on public cloud services. But if all the VMs on the host belong to you, as is common in corporate setups, at best this is a way to escalate a breach. Public services could make it easier to make sure you have a whole host for yourself. I can imagine even small sites wanting to make sure that the machines doing SSL termination aren't co-hosted with anyone else.
- mariusz79 13y ago
  Well, not entirely. Imagine running Windows guest on OpenBSD host. It shouldn't be a problem to infect the guest vm with some kind of a virus/trojan developed especially to take advantage of this attack vector. In this case you may be thinking that you're safer running OpenBSD as your main os, and using Windows guest to watch youtube videos, but in reality by having Flash player installed on your Win VM you can't be sure that the host has not been compromised.. So while on the paper, it may look like virtualization is safer, in reality it's a false sense of security.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    I would argue that it's still safer, even though it's not completely safe. You shouldn't view any sort of security measure as perfect, but that doesn't mean that using good practices doesn't contribute to better safety. Using your example: attackers being reduced to performing side channel attacks after owning a VM is better than them having direct access to the host machine itself (using the same exploit), even if it's still a security flaw. Defense in depth is a good idea, even if it's not perfect. (Note that your argument goes from "not entirely safe" to "not safer", which doesn't logically follow.)
- jordanthoms 13y ago
  Amazon EC2 has dedicated instances which run on single-tenant hardware.
zobzu 13y ago
Nothing's 100% secure. it's all about having the best trade off (best doesn't mean most secure, it means the one where you get the most of everything else without sacrificing too much security) basically, like anything else in life, its about.. balance. vm provide a good balance for most things. if you're holding the fate of the world tho, please dont store it in AWS - Thanks. :p
gonzo 13y ago
OpenBSD has several side-channel attacks possible against it's poorly-written AES-GCM implementation. Doesn't even require a VM. They're in the middle of fscking up OpenSSL as we write.

Right, because Amazon/etc === the sole use of virtualization? There couldn't possibly be any companies in the world running multiple VMs on hardware they solely use (either owned or rented).

rodgerd 13y ago

For certain values of right. I'll take the marginal risk of security vulnerabilities over the envrionmental damage of fabbing and powering datacentres full of 99% idle servers.

mariusz79 13y ago
How many of these server have no real purpose? So many of them host pointless websites, generate loads of useless data, or transfer tons of spam from one server to another. One badly written function, used on millions of computers that increase cpu usage by 1% more than it should will waste MWatts of power, yet nobody is worrying about that.. Thousands of new smartphone models released every year, and I don't hear people screaming about environmental damage. Want less environmental damage? Spend more time on efficient code, write everything in machine code, and don't comment on HN. After all to post one comment, how many server, switches, routers, computers need to be on? What a waste!

pedrocr 13y ago

This is only an issue if you're hosted together with the attacker, which is indeed an issue on public cloud services. But if all the VMs on the host belong to you, as is common in corporate setups, at best this is a way to escalate a breach. Public services could make it easier to make sure you have a whole host for yourself. I can imagine even small sites wanting to make sure that the machines doing SSL termination aren't co-hosted with anyone else.

mariusz79 13y ago
Well, not entirely. Imagine running Windows guest on OpenBSD host. It shouldn't be a problem to infect the guest vm with some kind of a virus/trojan developed especially to take advantage of this attack vector. In this case you may be thinking that you're safer running OpenBSD as your main os, and using Windows guest to watch youtube videos, but in reality by having Flash player installed on your Win VM you can't be sure that the host has not been compromised.. So while on the paper, it may look like virtualization is safer, in reality it's a false sense of security.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  I would argue that it's still safer, even though it's not completely safe. You shouldn't view any sort of security measure as perfect, but that doesn't mean that using good practices doesn't contribute to better safety. Using your example: attackers being reduced to performing side channel attacks after owning a VM is better than them having direct access to the host machine itself (using the same exploit), even if it's still a security flaw. Defense in depth is a good idea, even if it's not perfect. (Note that your argument goes from "not entirely safe" to "not safer", which doesn't logically follow.)
jordanthoms 13y ago
Amazon EC2 has dedicated instances which run on single-tenant hardware.

zobzu 13y ago

Nothing's 100% secure. it's all about having the best trade off (best doesn't mean most secure, it means the one where you get the most of everything else without sacrificing too much security) basically, like anything else in life, its about.. balance. vm provide a good balance for most things. if you're holding the fate of the world tho, please dont store it in AWS - Thanks. :p

gonzo 13y ago

OpenBSD has several side-channel attacks possible against it's poorly-written AES-GCM implementation. Doesn't even require a VM. They're in the middle of fscking up OpenSSL as we write.