Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 11/10/2013 10:59 AM, Richard Pieri wrote: > The only reliable defense against these is to maintain good physical > security. > Correct. But as I think about it, I don't think putting your machines in a co-lo means you are completely doomed. For example, say you are renting some physical space over which you have some significant control. Be it a cage or maybe just a cabinet, you should be able to have some intrusion detection (booby traps) and use that shut things down--including deleting keys. One catch is that if you want high availability you had better have redundancy across multiple co-los and your software design had better be designed to handle such outages. Your co-lo agreement had better not give them routine access or you will always be down. Another catch is that if your booby traps are triggered or your systems are otherwise shutdown and can't monitor themselves, you can't just come back and enter your keys and restart things: not if you are significantly paranoid. Why knows what snooping alterations have been performed on your equipment? A big audit, inspection, and reinstallation of key components is in order. I would suggest a healthy collection of seals, both high quality standardized seals and custom seals. I think it would be fun to design such a system. Not that the men with the black bags from the TLA couldn't defeat it, just that they would have to put significant effort into doing so and couldn't be certain they could do so without detection. Put another way, even at a co-lo I think good physical enough security could be devised to force the TLAs to look at other avenues. Cyber attacks, social engineering attacks, etc. -kb
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |