After reading this article, I had a few dissenting thoughts, maybe someone will provide their perspective?

The article suggests not running critical workloads virtually based on a failure scenario of the hosting environment (such as ransomware on hypervisor).

That does allow using the ‘all your eggs in one basket’ phrase, so I agree that running at least one instance of a service physically could be justified, but threat actors will be trying to time execution of attacks against both if possible. Adding complexity works both ways here.

I don’t really agree with the comments about not patching however. The premise that the physical workload or instance would be patched or updated more than the virtual one seems unrelated. A hesitance to patch systems is more about up time vs downtime vs breaking vs risk in my opinion.

Is your organization running critical workloads virtual like anything else, combination physical and virtual, or combination of all previous plus cloud solutions (off prem)?

  • @terminhell
    link
    English
    22 months ago

    True horrors

    Like, that’s what vpns and jump boxes are for at the very least.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      Wanna bet they expose SSH on port 22 to the internet on their “critical” servers? 🤣

      • @terminhell
        link
        English
        21 month ago

        Ive been tempted to setup a Honeypot like this lol

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          You’ll definitely get lots of login attempts. I used to have a port 22 ssh, hundreds of attempts per day.

          Would be interesting to see what post login behavior was.