Yeah, but today is the day that the new government (elected in April) run by Fidesz takes over control of government ministries from the old MSzP-SzDSz coalition. So it will be interesting to see whether they actually quickly get useful information on to those sites or whether this is just an attempt to limit access to embarrassing data (Fidesz is more than a bit nationalistic). I suspect that this is an honest attempt to transition to presenting information more clearly, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I were wrong.

Te jo eg.

In this case it mean OMG. The page, even the Hungarian language version, has wikipedia links explaining that OMG is an English abbreviation meaning something like "Istenem!" (My God!) or "Te jo eg!" ("Oh, great heaven!").

I never would have thought that Fidesz (the new ruling party) still had anyone in it with a sense of humor. Back in the day (1990) they had the best campaign posters. I guess when you have complete control of parliament (more than 2/3) you can take a few risks. Also keep in mind that in Hungary, the Internet is used mostly by the young.

Back in the 80s, I remember someone saying that a paperless office would be about as useful as the paperless toilet.

I'm not sure why I feel that this is true. But I'm hoping this discussion will provide insight.

And although they are difficult to find, they are easy to catch on account of their left legs having a different length than their right legs.

I'm not asking the name of the individual. But surely it is relevant to know for anyone dealing with security issues whether this particular part of the attack could have been prevented by Google.

Thanks, but I think that people are being too hard on Schneier. The Computer World article that I cited is based on an "unnamed source" who is "not authorized to speak to the press." Obviously that article should have been cited, but I that oversight in citation is a blunder, not something that challenges the integrity of Schneier.

But it is consistent with the official report out of Google, which stated that the Gmail accounts themselves were not compromised, and that the information stolen was subject lines and account creation date. The only purpose I can see for having a system that would just have access to that kind of information is would be for some kind of "pre-scanning" for law enforcement.

Among the many questions that I want answered is whether the credentials used to access that system (presumably obtained via long standing Adobe Reader or IE zero-day vulnerabilities) belong to a Google employee or someone else who had access to that system.

When I blogged about this the week before last, I was relying on an article in Computer World which talked about the intruders gaining access to "a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users."

No I did not. Because what I host doesn't require that degree of uptime and physical security. I listed many options that may or may not be appropriate to the original poster. The OP didn't make clear what his hosting needs were, so my suggestions were a bit of a shotgun approach.

Obviously there are things that hosting in a real data center can do that one can't do at home. You just need to figure out what your needs and your resources are.