The headline authors really trying hard to grab those advertising clicks...
- Is it a fact that tape archives are immutable?
- Is it a fact they cannot be intentionally lost?
- Is it a fact they cannot be intercepted?
Whether or not any of the above is true/false, the fact of the matter is every system is hackable to an extent. If the definition of security is using an obscure (notice I did not say outdated): than sure, tapes are "secure reliable" not these pesky hackable digital records every other business on the planet uses.
but come on. The rhetoric is exhausting. Evaluate on real world risk.
> the fact of the matter is every system is hackable to an extent.
True, but the extents can differ quite a lot. A system that requires someone to physically mount media has an inherent security benefit just from not being available until someone physically mounts the media.
> not these pesky hackable digital records every other business on the planet uses.
Not every other business on the planet uses always online digital records, and those that do don't exactly have a stellar security history.
I'm not arguing here that one is better than the other in this particular case. Making that determination requires balancing a lot of factors that I have no data about. But removable physical media does have some advantages here.
The headline authors really trying hard to grab those advertising clicks...
- Is it a fact that tape archives are immutable?
- Is it a fact they cannot be intentionally lost?
- Is it a fact they cannot be intercepted?
Whether or not any of the above is true/false, the fact of the matter is every system is hackable to an extent. If the definition of security is using an obscure (notice I did not say outdated): than sure, tapes are "secure reliable" not these pesky hackable digital records every other business on the planet uses.
but come on. The rhetoric is exhausting. Evaluate on real world risk.
> the fact of the matter is every system is hackable to an extent.
True, but the extents can differ quite a lot. A system that requires someone to physically mount media has an inherent security benefit just from not being available until someone physically mounts the media.
> not these pesky hackable digital records every other business on the planet uses.
Not every other business on the planet uses always online digital records, and those that do don't exactly have a stellar security history.
I'm not arguing here that one is better than the other in this particular case. Making that determination requires balancing a lot of factors that I have no data about. But removable physical media does have some advantages here.
> Doge Moves ... to Hackable Digital Records
Hackable ? Yes. But always available on Darknet. /s