Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
Well, I think the last few pages have been about how Labour's servers weren't attacked, rather they were casually perused by innocent victims who unwittingly stumbled across and naively acquired the data. Victims who are being made out to be evil villains by left-wing nutters on this forum.
So having the services split between boxes would have certainly protected innocent National party members in this case, right?
|
TBH I don't really care about whether National or Labour or whoever is being attacked, or who is responsible for "cover ups" and car chases and whatever else the movie plot in their brain has. I merely noted that immediately saying "Hey, we're secure because we've got two servers, ha ha they weren't because they had one" is naive.
That's all. I don't think a debate about hypothetical "better" designs is very useful, because in this case it looks like the problems were a bit more fundamental than how many servers they had. In general if one server is badly run, two is not going to be any better, right?
And given one was badly run, I doubt a single bit of this thread and who did what to whom would change if there were two. Or twenty.