Crafty bad actors can infect all of an organization's virtual machines at once, rendering tier-one applications useless.

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)?

    • CameronDev@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Sure, but the author makes it sounds like thats its their standard way of doing things, which is insane.

      And if you do have a misconfiguration, the rational thing is to fix that, not dump the entire platform.