ALT+PTR Screen still works pretty well with RDP. So anybody who gains access via RDP can still take screenshots of all the data.
Latest security headlines from Network World:
Analyzing fundamental flaws: Opening vs. unlocking
Firefox SSL-certificate debate gets gnarly
DeviceLock counters USB stick menace with alliance
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Secure Data??
File transfers also possible - as server is also has Internet access - anybody can try and find how to transfer a file to remote host. Having RDP access not prevent using a Laptop with RDP client, store all session data on Laptop, including all screen information.
Easily disabled with a simple reg change
Easily disabled with a simple reg change
Metro Heatlh
My understanding is Metro Health is pulling out all VM VDI and replacing with HP Blade PC's based on performance, user experience, economics, and reliability.
where did you hear that??
where did you hear that??
Secure data - not yet..
Virtual systems have the same problem as any other, if you have access to the layer under it, it is not secure. Same as if you have access to hardware, no OS is secure.
A virtual system has to have virtual=real mode where it steals the access from layer under it, secures the access for exclusive use (or fails if it can't), etc. Not all hardware (or OS's) support it today, it is not easy (think what they "share", memory, lines, controllers, etc) and it can be expensive if the "host" is supposed to work at the same time without those resources.
But, I believe that in future it can be done (has been done by hardware partitioning), hardware costs are always going down. Is it the best solution, maybe but not the only one.
VMWare failure is more like it........
Network World is obviously too naïve to know when they’ve been BS’d.
Chris – would you care to come out of your cubicle long enough to discuss this with someone that was there? VMWare certainly didn’t save the day. It set up a disaster time and time again until real hardware was used.
Want to talk about it?
yeah let's discuss. It
yeah let's discuss. It wasn't VMware's fault.
VMware's dirty little secret hnot told here
Asanother witness to this so called "Destop of the Future". How much did each session cost? How much was the storage to hadle all the disk I/O with a simple Antivirus Update or Windows Update to all 1500 sessions daily. How does it handle major application upgrades with 100's or MB or GB being copied to hundreds of VDI sessions at once? We mindfull of VMware's dirty little secret - poor disk I/O equalls an RGE"
You know Mike that you can't
You know Mike that you can't treat VDI environments like regular desktops. If you want to invest in VDI, then you need to treat it differently. VMware doesn't have a disk performance problem - if you're going to run an environment of that size, then you need to scale it on appropriate hardware.
Dirty Little Secret is right on the money
How much do companies spend to scale their environment?The cost of scaling storage to handle the disk I/O with VMWare at that size can easily triple or even quadruple the cost of desktops to users. At what point is VDI not cost effective anymore? From my companies standpoint, we would have saved a large amount of money had we just given all of our users new PC's. Soft costs alone will never justify the increase in cost to scale out the architecture for VDI. Take it from someone who learned the hard way.