-
April 27th, 2007, 09:02 AM
#1
Security of "Web 2.0"
Ok, so for those that haven't heard yet the concept of web 2.0 is to go back to a system of smart mainframes with all your apps and data and using only a dumb terminal. I basically want to hear people's views on the idea.
A live example is of course google docs and spreadsheets.
The pros as far as I'm concerned are:
* Documents are available anywhere on any pc
* All pcs in a network are always running the same version
Cons:
* Performance depends on how many other people in the world are doing the same thing
* A system with more users is inherently less secure.
* Any breach of security will allow access to a LOT more data than storing on local workstations or local networks.
Given this report:
Google Malfunction
I want to know what you lot think.
If the world doesn't stop annoying me I will name my kids ";DROP DATABASE;" and get revenge.
-
April 27th, 2007, 10:45 AM
#2
OK, my personal experience is restricted to thin client deployments. All I sense here is a liberal spreading of BS. Sure the trend will be to provide more comprehensive and possibly sophisticated web services, but that is only a fraction of computing.
the concept of web 2.0 is to go back to a system of smart mainframes with all your apps and data and using only a dumb terminal
As in a herd of white elephants waiting to be DDoSed?
Immediate problems that I can see:
- Security, particularly of data subject to regulatory compliance, financial information and intellectual property.
- Trust and reliability of service
- Licence fees
- Copyright
- Cost
- Control
- Privacy
- Resistance from consumers, a fair proportion of whom have difficulty with what they have already.
- Resistance from hardware and software manufacturers
To name but a few
-
April 27th, 2007, 06:10 PM
#3
Ard- Web2.0 is really just a marketting phrase meant to imply that you are getting a richer experience from a web page than you would have 5 years ago... Server side apps brought about through AJAX is a hallmark of what people call web2.0 but I've never heard of web2.0 encompassing a switch to thin clients.
Of course, if you ask 10 different people what web2.0 means you will get 10 different answers. The main reason I try to avoid the term..
As an example ebay, flicker, craigslist, and wikipedia are considered web2.0 sites. None of those involve thin clients or anything of the like.
-
April 27th, 2007, 07:23 PM
#4
well, the IDEA is to switch over to thin clients, make the browser the centre of everyones world. Yes, the term is a bit vauge. Hence the quotes.
If the world doesn't stop annoying me I will name my kids ";DROP DATABASE;" and get revenge.
Similar Threads
-
By E5C4P3 in forum AntiOnline's General Chit Chat
Replies: 33
Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 12:40 AM
-
By SDK in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
Replies: 1
Last Post: August 5th, 2004, 06:13 PM
-
By tekno in forum Microsoft Security Discussions
Replies: 61
Last Post: October 15th, 2003, 07:51 AM
-
By xmaddness in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
Replies: 1
Last Post: October 2nd, 2002, 09:32 PM
-
By xmaddness in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
Replies: 0
Last Post: May 29th, 2002, 09:27 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|