Please trim messages on this thread.
They're over a meg each and everything is going in to my moderation queue
which holds up the conversation for everyone.
...@ozdotnet.com] On
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 6:18 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Azure and security trust
(resend due to forgetting to remove the quoted content and thereby blowing the
post size limit)
Chaps, thanks for the great comments on this. I've forwarded a
*(resend due to forgetting to remove the quoted content and thereby blowing
the post size limit)*
Chaps, thanks for the great comments on this. I've forwarded a paste-up of
the important parts to the person I'm working with on the hospital data.
Next time I talk to someone who manages web servers
Wow, so much irony it alters the earth's magnetic field.
Getting carried away with password requirements is quite annoying though.
One site I've used had such ridiculous requirements it took me half an hour
to come up with an acceptable password. For this reason I get the browser
to remember it s
dotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On
Behalf Of Tom Rutter
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 8:58 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Azure and security trust
+1 for Greg.
This reminds me of a time we pranked the *head security guy* at a company I
worked for and easily convinced him to give us some private detail
>>
>> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
>> fax
>>
>> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
>> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf
: www.sqldownunder.com
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Tobin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 February 2015 4:30 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: Azure and security trust
>
>
>
> One alternativ
Sorry, to clarify - when I say "compulsory" I mean that clients will most
likely demand it, not compulsory from a legal standpoint :)
On 25 February 2015 at 20:18, Grant Maw wrote:
> It may not be the state of play right now, but I suspect that in the not
> too distant future, it will be *compul
It may not be the state of play right now, but I suspect that in the not
too distant future, it will be *compulsory* to store data in Azure, AWS or
their like, because of the reasons that Greg L mentions above. They'll
simply be able to do a better job at securing the data than overworked
in-house
ay, 25 February 2015 4:30 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Azure and security trust
One alternative that I haven't looked into much at all, so take this with a
grain of salt - is to have anything identifying on a local network, firewalled,
and accessible via a site-to-site VPN connection to an A
One alternative that I haven't looked into much at all, so take this with a
grain of salt - is to have anything identifying on a local network,
firewalled, and accessible via a site-to-site VPN connection to an Azure
hosted server. Like I said, I haven't looked at what an implementation
would take
Sorry to clarify keeping the data onshore should **not** be a problem
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 4:12 PM
To: 'ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com'
Subject: RE: Azure and security trust
Mark
Azure has an Australian Data Centre (in Sydney and M
Mark
Azure has an Australian Data Centre (in Sydney and Melbourne I believe) so
keeping the data onshore should be a problem.
Regards
Nathan Fisher
I /haven't/ followed these links, but I assume the biggest issue for
Australian-based cloud services -- that this sort of data should not
go offshore -- is covered somewhere in there.
--
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)
On 25 February 2015 at 14:06, Greg Keogh wrote:
> FYI - I just found t
Did Snowden get his secrets off the cloud? What Snowden shows is that the
biggest risk to your data and business is rouge employee's not where your
data is stored. For every dollar a business loses due to cloud security
issues I would wager they lose 100 due to internal pilfering.
Craig
On Wed, F
15 matches
Mail list logo
