An excellent question -- and not one I have an answer to.
I think that perhaps they should get Bruce Schneier to help design their systems for them.
| They should also assume that some of their own employees are moles.
I mention that they should assume that.
They aren't getting *nearly* paranoid enough. They should be encrypting the data on disk, on network connections between machines in the *same* data center, not just between centers. In fact the data should remain encrypted at all times unless absolutely necessary to have in clear-text to process it -- and that should never leave the CPU. It should remain clear-text only for the absolutely minimum time required.
They should assume that hostile agencies (foreign *and* domestic) have tapped every last network link they own. As well as most routers and processing machines. They should also assume that some small percentage of their workforce are working on behalf of one of these adversaries. Given these assumptions they should design a system that can remain as secure as possible given these circumstances.
Merely encrypting the network links between their data centers is not nearly enough to thwart the likes of the NSA, CSEC, GCHQ or other nameless agencies.
I you're allergic to Retnox 5...
What are you, a jock?
Heh. I have a CueCat and a Newton100: Eat up Martha forever!
If you have Windows, you have to wear a proletariat cap and carry a card or something.
Wouldn't this particular comment fully reflect the opinions of the JCS? Just sorta seems to be their thing.
The google help line number is the one thing their search can't find.
Damn, that's cold!
Yeah, only nerds would like something like this.
Still, Star Trek is the new Shakespeare so we 500 more years of this.