|
Or they can't read properly - thus not understanding the question (don't know if that's worse).
I'd really like to know who chose #1, and probably #2 as well - just so I can avoid them like the plague. Well, perhaps #2 if you have come across some really decent and trustworthy company - you just might think similar is possible. At least those choosing #4 are honest in knowing that they don't know.
Re large companies ... I actually trust them less than small ones (all being equal). It's just a numbers game. All you need for your info to be leaked / stolen / abused / whatever is one single bad apple employee. The more employees a company has, the more chances that one of them is such bad apple.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. That's a bad option.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps those voters are thinking "It is fine to store other people's sensitive data in the Cloud, just not my own." 
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Company X may be trustworthy, but that makes them more appealing to company Y which isn't -- and who will buy them out.
|
|
|
|
|
seems foolish to believe that we haven't been storing this information already on remote networks that are accessible via a public or private network.
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of what I was going to say - unless the data is completely disconnected from any network that can access the internet, it's already in the cloud.
|
|
|
|
|
Your data is safe in my cloud.
I would not ever dare sell it, or create a full-text-search catalog 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I almost had a cloud subscription* (via a TigerDirect bundle) - they were sleaze and, as part of the consequence, I no longer do any business with TigerDirect.
Well - not long ago I received an email (as though I was subscribed to the cloud) that gave me a week to get my data off as they were closing down. Imagine some poor suckers who're away and can't get to their data in time!
And, of course, if the internet is down you can't get to your data at all. And, if you're fool enough to have cloud based applications, well - since you can't get to your data you don't need to worry about the doing any work, anyway.
* Why? Since it would be effectively free for the first year, I thought it'd make a good temporary drop-box.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Cloud storage is useful for storing backups or for sharing between various locations. That's about it as far as I am concerned. What sort of a dimwit will trust a total stranger with his most valuable assets? Not me matey!
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
It's trust...
What is more "secure"? your 25 Euro Netgear router at home and your software-windows-firewall or the 100'thousands-of-$s riverhead, toplayer, intrusion detection systems of large providers?
It comes down to a question of trust - do you trust your provider? If yes, then go ahead, and TRUST. If you don't - then agree to that and don't put any data in that cloud.
It's not the attack from outside you have to fear - it's the man in the middle - or even worse: the insider - a totally pi**ed employee of your cloud provider, that tries to create trouble.
so choose a cloud provider that encrypts the data in its datacenters - where data is backed up as blackboxes. Then a cloud is as safe as it can be in my oppinion.
Just my 2 cent
Cheers, Mike
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Barthold wrote: What is more "secure"? your 25 Euro Netgear router at home and your software-windows-firewall or the 100'thousands-of-$s riverhead, toplayer, intrusion detection systems of large providers?
Expensive doesn't make it more secure. Expensive firewalls, routers and switches are expensive because they need to be able to handle large amounts of traffic without slowing down and because they need to be managed. A 25 Euro netgear router probably has as many security holes as a 100'000$ one.
Mike Barthold wrote: so choose a cloud provider that encrypts the data in its datacenters - where data is backed up as blackboxes. Then a cloud is as safe as it can be in my oppinion.
No. That's like buying a house and giving the key to an employe so he can open up the door for you everytime you want to get in. What stops this employee from getting into the house and sniffing around? If you want to store sensitive data in the cloud, you have to encrypt the data yourself BEFORE storing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but how can you be sure that vendor of your hardware/software does not have a key to your network/pc/nas/... ?
Isn't it easier to break in to your house/office and take the hardware that break into "the cloud"?
It's also the matter of trust, this time to trust the gear you buy.
And isn't it generally advised to encrypt the sensitive data? Stored locally or in cloud?
This is question about where to store, not if to encrypt...
|
|
|
|
|
I use a couple of removable hard drives (that are not shared beyond the PC) to make backups of my sensitive data. They are normally locked in a fireproof safe. I use two in case of hardware failure on one of them.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Fireproof safes a good idea, but one bit of advice I tend to give (following losing many systems but (by luck) no data to Hurricane Sandy):
A backup of important data should be in a separate location. The company I work for has financial implications so, by law, it must have a secure off-site backup. Someone already learned their lesson.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I actually keep the fireproof safe at my office and the main data on a PC at home so they are several miles apart except when I bring one of the disks home for backing up.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
inside a named box at the train station.
Cloud technology is great: it's a form of perr-to-peer parallel clustering, so internal clouds can be great for companies and governments. For small data and personal use the general purpose clouds are almost useful (you need an Internet connection to access the data, maybe in very urbanized areas it is not a problem but it is what? 20% of the world to be optimistic?), and for web contents they are very good - the risk of server breakdown and missing content is reduced.
But sensitive data? Only if hidden, steganographed and encrypted. Something like the "Super Secret Networks" we are used to see in movies like Hitman or spy movies...
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
that is the question. In every place data can be attacked, so thinking the cloud is insecure can be an error too.
But personally: I dont like cloud, because of the external downtime risk.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
If I am working on a project where authentication is being processed, I won't suggest them to store the passwords on a separate local file. Clouds would definitely provide methods to encrypt sensitive data and other data that is not sensitive can be easily stored without effort.
Clouds are, like other tech, emerging with a great velocity. The better would be start finding a good way to secure them rather than thinking of a "Trick or Treat" method to avoid storing the data. If I get a space on Cloud for my application, I would use better methods to make sure the data is stored and is saved in every possible way. 
So, my vote is I would store it if I am using good precautionary measures. After all storing the passwords in plain-string or base64 isn't the efficient way to store passwords on or off Cloud., is it?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
No offence... but you sound a bit idealist in my opinion.
Are you now programming for living? I would guess "no"
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
When you select a Cloud company, how many of its employees do you rate as loyal to you and your company? How many of them work for minimum wage but still have access to your data? How many of them would accept a small sum from your competitors in order to pass over a backup?
How do you know that the company does any backups, much less how frequent and "solid" they are? How do you know that they won;t be bought out by a company that is accountant led instead of technically savvy?
How do you know the company will still exist next year?
We have worked damn hard over the last twenty or more years to get away from the centralised data model, and to a "local" data and processing environment - and now the centralised model is back, but with the added twist of handing it all to unknowns to look after...
Not for me, thank you! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it's not only about that, but it's the mainreason to not store sensitive data in any cloud (except your own). On that view i guess clouds are mostly interesting for students to share project stuff and homework.
Otherwise i can't imagine data that can go in the cloud without being sensitive
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: On that view i guess clouds are mostly interesting for students to share project stuff and homework.
I didn't know that the QA is now a cloud 
Gimme codez plzzzzzzzz
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, get a separate laptop and adjust it to act as a web server. I am sure you trust yourself to not phish it and rely on yourself and that laptop. 
Do not forget to send me the URL to your site! 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: How do you know the company will still exist next year?
You have the same problem when investing in an OS.. So, if it is the same company you're betting on..
Not my opinion, but would sound reasonable as argumentation.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: would sound reasonable as argumentation.
It's not really the same: if Microsoft went bust tomorrow, there would still be people using windows in ten years time. If the company holding your cloud data goes bust, and their servers are repossessed...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
