Inside the guts of Nano Server, Microsoft's tiny new Cloud OS

The Register ^ | May 1, 2015 | Neil McAllister

[dayglored]

More exciting info on the Nano Server.

[dayglored]

More on Microsoft's new Windows Nano Server ... PING!

You can find all the Windows Ping list threads with FR search: search on keyword "windowspinglist".

[Resolute Conservative]

Will the blue screen be nano sized?

[dayglored]

> Will the blue screen be nano sized?

No screen. The nano server has no GUI, and is controlled remotely by PowerShell commands.

So they'll have to do the BSOD with ASCII character graphics.

[tacticalogic]

It’’l be the blue postage stamp.

[GeronL]

This “cloud” stuff is stupid unless its in my house and I control it.

[tacticalogic]

This “cloud” stuff is stupid unless its in my house and I control it.

You can have that. It's called a "private cloud".

[GeronL]

I already one of those...

never mind.

[9thLife]

the first visible result of a massive code refactoring project that will eventually change the way that every version of Windows Server is built and delivered

No mention of the NSA engineers?

[rarestia]

This “cloud” stuff is stupid unless its in my house and I control it.

Here's a scenario for you: you have a robust home network configured. You have redundant storage, redundant servers, maybe some VMs for different functions. You're meticulous with your backups to ensure you'll never experience a long term outage or loss of data.

You're out to dinner one night with the wife. The cat jumps up on the counter, knocks something into a wall socket, sparks fly and set your house on fire. It's a total loss. How are those backups working for you?

I'm recalcitrant to adopt cloud technologies, but I make certain that I have 3 copies of my data: one I keep up-to-date, one I keep locked in my safe, and one I keep in the cloud for any eventuality. You may never need it, but with "cloud" storage for long-term stuff like back ups running at less than $0.03 per GB, you'd be a fool not to consider it to keep your important data safe.

[dayglored]

> ...you'd be a fool not to consider [the could] to keep your important data safe.

Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt,...

I favor PGP/GPG with 4096-bit keys.

[dayglored]

could -> cloud

[rarestia]

My backups are IPSEC encrypted at rest first, transferred over encrypted protocols, and then encrypted again on Microsoft’s Azure system. Only I have the certificates used to encrypt the first time, and I use 4096 bit keys.

[dayglored]

Sounds about right.

I also have off-site physical backups (encrypted of course) that can be retrieved very quickly compared to even the 100Mbps fibre internet connection. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon full of hard drives.

[tacticalogic]

My backups are IPSEC encrypted at rest first

I didn't think you could use IPSEC to encrypt at rest. It's an "on the fly" packet level encryption that secures data on the wire.

[dayglored]

> I didn't think you could use IPSEC to encrypt at rest. It's an "on the fly" packet level encryption that secures data on the wire.

I saw that too, but I just figured I had something to research tonight. :)

How about it, rarestia... how's it done?

[dayglored]

There's also this little problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec#Alleged_NSA_interference

[GeronL]

definitely would need some strong encryption

[rarestia]

IPSEC is used during the backup process (Windows Backup) to the main Windows server (over the wire) in my home environment. The store is encrypted with BitLocker (at rest) and then the backups are indexed, encrypted, and shuttled off to Azure.

[rarestia]

See #19. Should’ve clarified that the data is encrypted in transit and is encrypted at rest with BitLocker. I have an archiving program that catalogs the backup and encrypts them into 10 GB chunks (using certificates) for upload to Azure.