<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Incredible statement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56</link>
	<description>Computer Security, Geek Stuff, and Food</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:58:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: decaf</title>
		<link>http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-2237</link>
		<dc:creator>decaf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 05:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-2237</guid>
		<description>2007-07-13 21:39:40

Bob,

Anyone that both terms themselves a ’security expert’ and suggests virtualization as a panacea for solving system security issues has definitely oversold their skillset. Of the security professionals I know, each and everyone of them understand that virtualization _may_ abstract some problems, but you still have a system running that someone can break into, and is likely trying to break into right now. (Okay, I’m a little more paranoid than most people, I admit it.)

However, in this particular case, virtualization wasn’t even the suggested solution to the security problem.

But this does remind me of two things I was thinking of blathering about, a Reasonable Paranoia, and why security people like virtualization (and it’s not because it increases security).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2007-07-13 21:39:40</p>
<p>Bob,</p>
<p>Anyone that both terms themselves a ’security expert’ and suggests virtualization as a panacea for solving system security issues has definitely oversold their skillset. Of the security professionals I know, each and everyone of them understand that virtualization _may_ abstract some problems, but you still have a system running that someone can break into, and is likely trying to break into right now. (Okay, I’m a little more paranoid than most people, I admit it.)</p>
<p>However, in this particular case, virtualization wasn’t even the suggested solution to the security problem.</p>
<p>But this does remind me of two things I was thinking of blathering about, a Reasonable Paranoia, and why security people like virtualization (and it’s not because it increases security).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Matsuoka</title>
		<link>http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-2086</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Matsuoka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-2086</guid>
		<description>I agree that using Minis to run Windows is bad idea.  But this person has (probably inadvertently) suggested something that many security experts think is a _very good_ idea -- to run Windows more securely by using virtualization.  The host OS could as easily be Windows or Linux as a Mac.

There is also no evidence for your explanation of the security of OS X -- The use of Intel Macs, and Macs overall, has increased substantially over the past few years, and yet there are still no successful OS-level exploits in the wild.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that using Minis to run Windows is bad idea.  But this person has (probably inadvertently) suggested something that many security experts think is a _very good_ idea &#8212; to run Windows more securely by using virtualization.  The host OS could as easily be Windows or Linux as a Mac.</p>
<p>There is also no evidence for your explanation of the security of OS X &#8212; The use of Intel Macs, and Macs overall, has increased substantially over the past few years, and yet there are still no successful OS-level exploits in the wild.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rahrens</title>
		<link>http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-540</link>
		<dc:creator>rahrens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-540</guid>
		<description>Man, I thought I'd heard everything before, but this one takes the cake!  I've been in the tech support field with the Feds for ten years, and I've used and fixed Macs for longer than that.  So I've heard and seen a lot of crap over the years, on both sides of the platform divide.

But to hear of a sysadmin that can actually take that position...methinks he'd be better off in another line of work.  Certainly his employer would!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, I thought I&#8217;d heard everything before, but this one takes the cake!  I&#8217;ve been in the tech support field with the Feds for ten years, and I&#8217;ve used and fixed Macs for longer than that.  So I&#8217;ve heard and seen a lot of crap over the years, on both sides of the platform divide.</p>
<p>But to hear of a sysadmin that can actually take that position&#8230;methinks he&#8217;d be better off in another line of work.  Certainly his employer would!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: This is not the Mac security you&#8217;re looking for. &#124; securosis.com</title>
		<link>http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-532</link>
		<dc:creator>This is not the Mac security you&#8217;re looking for. &#124; securosis.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadbeefcafe.org/archives/56#comment-532</guid>
		<description>[...] (updated: direct link to the original story at deadbeat cafe) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (updated: direct link to the original story at deadbeat cafe) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
