"Sorry, I find this "survey" meaningless as reported. Figure 1 says it's showing downtime, then the text says it's a percentage of systems that have reported a data breach. Which is it?"
Then you clearly dont know how to read... "enterprise customers reported a successful data breach that resulted in tangible downtime" So its downtime as a result of a breach. Sheesh. Joe On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:16 PM zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I find this "survey" meaningless as reported. Figure 1 says it's > showing downtime, then the text says it's a percentage of systems that > have reported a data breach. Which is it? > > I'd be willing to believe this if it had all x86 servers grouped together. > I don't believe there's something that makes the x86 machines listed > magically resistant to attacks. Z, Itanium (Superdome), Power -- sure: not > that they're necessarily inherently more resistant (the OS may be, but bits > is bits) but they're less common so there are fewer folks bothering to > attack them. > > I'm 100% sure that the good ratings for high-end servers have more to do > with who buys them than the servers themselves. Sort of like saying > "Supercars have better paint finish after several years than low-end cars" > -- right, because they're bought by folks who can afford to take care of > them. People who buy white-box servers are generally not high-end shops, > aren't investing in the things that make them more secure. That also > explains the alleged faster detection. > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:02 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey, wait a minute. It looks to me like they're comparing hardware boxes > > - but surely the OS is the important factor in security? (Well, aside > from > > careful administration.) > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* A good pun is its own reword. */ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 19:53 > > > > Don't get me wrong: I do believe that IBM mainframes belong at the top of > > the list for security capabilities. But it occurs to me that if they > > determined this by poll, then their results may be skewed by a) the > belief, > > on the part of mainframers like me, that IBM is best, and b) a reluctance > > on the part of some corporations to report breaches even in polls that > > claim they're anonymous. > > > > That said, I'm a little surprised that IBM had "fastest mean time to > > detection (MTTD) from the onset of the attempted attack until the company > > isolated and shut it down". I know real-time reporting products are out > > there for mainframes, but I had the impression they're not used much. > > > > It's also interesting, given the size of the companies that use > > mainframes, that they also report "The least amount of monetary losses > due > > to a successful security hack". Although see item b) above again. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > > Of Mark Regan > > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 16:40 > > > > https://techchannel.com/Enterprise/04/2022/secure-platforms-itic-survey > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
