3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoI 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.)