This only seems like a good idea for larger organizations. The idea would be to share a pool of server resources among many working groups with assumptions:
1. server utilization on average would be good
2. seldom have the situation where everyone wants to do large runs at once
At CompassLabs we use Elastic MapReduce: great because we can use a large number of servers for a few hours, and the price is right. On the other hand, large companies like Yahoo run their own large Hadoop clusters (just as an example)
So, this seems like a good idea only for large organizations.
I'm sorry but the whole concept of a private cloud makes no sense to me - why would you have a private electricity generator for your home?
The security issues are a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), I have written about it here:http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloud-computing-security-...
The security issue isn't all FUD. There are legitimate reason that you may not want to use a cloud like EC2 for certain things. Remember, you don't control the hardware for EC2. Some could modify the system so that all security measures you take are defeated. Is that /dev/random you are using to encrypt your memory really random?
Your private electricity example is probably a good example. Most datacenters and companies that rely on power pull it from multiple grids and actually do have a way to generate their own private power. The same will probably hold true for IaaS at some point. It will be something people grow to trust but if you want that last 0.1% you are going to have to do it yourself.
It's only FUD if you don't consider physical security at all important. When you're working with VERY sensitive data (the kind that mishandling could literally get you arrested for), you seek to secure it in every way possible.
Perhaps ironically, a white-listed firewall rule for a cluster of EC2 instances is probably more secure than most government networks, but putting it anywhere that compromises physical security is just as bad.
Its not that I don't consider physical security as important - I just do not think that the physical security provided by your private data centre is any better than what Amazon provides. The economies of scale and the motivation to avoid a massive security incident that affects all their customers is just greater than what you have with internal IT.
But of course do a risk assessment, maybe military data should not be on any sort of cloud. But I know internal government and military security is actually pretty poor - funnily enough generals care more making sure their comms work to their soldiers than whether it is encrypted - sound kind of like a business eh?
Either way I predict that within 5 years, private clouds will be a thing of the past
I have never worked in a company that physically segregated their internal network to one connected to the internet - and I have worked in Fortune 50 banks, credit card processors and online businesses. Like I said military maybe different but I know colleagues that work for the government and you should hear about how their security actually is vs. the perception (much like banks)
It is hard enough to get companies to segment their network into high value services vs the office network. The practical difficulty and cost of giving end users two machines connected to two different networks is just not worth the benefit gained.
Especially considering you can achieve a level of risk that is acceptable to the board and executive management with logical controls private clouds are just a waste of money.
Federal government is almost certainly what he's talking about.
We have heavily guarded rooms with impressive physical security, and authorized personnel only, in which the two networks can be 'viewed' at the same time.
For what it's worth, the majority of end users don't have two machines, they either visit a secured location when they need to, or have devices / software that only allow them to connect to one network OR the other at a time.
Generally speaking though, the network that has access to tactical data, or knows the most recent whereabouts of Saddam Hussein is typically ignorant of Facebook, or the internet at large.
ok fine I have seen these type of examples but where is the weakest link - e.g. does this super secret segregated network backup to unencrypted tape which is then lost or stolen (http://bit.ly/cQZiRd) a hard drive stolen (http://bit.ly/aLH2xI), a legitimate user walks out with info (http://bit.ly/b8Iecp), a laptop stolen (http://bit.ly/cp0h5Q)
The point I'm trying to make is you have to look at security holisticly. Having a super strong segregated network has no point if you are not going to have a similar level of control everywhere else which I can guarantee you the Federal government especially in the US does not have.
So why not take advantage of the cloud, enjoy the cost decrease, increase in resilience and scalability and still have an acceptable level of risk with application of reasonable logical controls?
I think we're deviating away from the real topic at hand, but regardless, I couldn't say specifically what the weakest link is... while I know that the tapes themselves have their own procedures, I don't know what they are.
The 'legitimate users' issue is largely mitigated from malice by severely limiting who those users are with background checks, security clearances, layered access levels, and a culture in which everybody reinforces the security procedures and watches for others who might be violating them, intentionally or unintentionally. This isn't 100% of course, nothing is, but it's largely effective I would guess.
Stolen laptops of course happen on occasion, but it's a dramatically different problem than unintentional access to a data center, or all the data therein. Further, most of the laptops I've seen have data-at-rest encryption, remote locating devices (GPS) and fairly stringent security protections on the device. In order to connect to any sensitive networks, they'd also have to use VPN and 2 factor encryption.
Largely, these things have already been thought of... but more importantly, if you're statement holds weight, and they should have stringent controls everywhere to be effective, then why would they arbitrarily allow their data to be potentially compromised in the event that Amazon has less stringent requirements -- and guess what, they do.
You've done a good job answering the question asked of me -- thank you.
To add a little more, in places where security really matters, like DoD manufacturing areas, there is literally physical security segregating everything from the people to the network to the hardware to the data from the unclassified parts. Knowing you could go to jail for a very long time if you do something stupid or illegal is a strong motivator. For those not so motivated, most places not only segregate the network but also the data: tapes or backup data are kept onsite in a secure area, computers used for interacting with the data never leave the secure area and have been modified not to have USB headers or removable hard drives, cables and gear are physically protected from tampering, etc.
None of this is to say that all risk is eliminated, but since most systems are compromised by casual hackers using simple tools, adding the security you can is usually a sensible thing to do.
Look two good replies and I think we are all in agreement that the military will probably not be using public cloud services any-time soon (at least not until budget cuts > security concerns) and if the OP is targeting purely that of market with that risk appetite then good luck to them.
My main point was that for most corporations and individuals the risk of using a public cloud with effective security controls and the right kind of data stored and processed there could be within their risk appetitive and therefore private clouds have no long term high profit making potential
Presumably, everyone on the entire campus is trusted to be there, with increasing layers of security. There are guards posted at all entrances to the campus, where I have to present a badge + window sticker to get on. Once on campus and parked, a swipe card gets me into the building, where I am presented with an X-Ray machine for my belongings and a metal detector that I have to walk through for entrance.
If I am taking any property on or off campus, I have to also present a property pass signed by someone with the authorization to allow that activity.
Admittedly, I could probably sneak a flash drive on if I were so inclined, but that's probably why they do background checks on people before they're given badges and swipe cards and all that.
I believe one very important reason is: don't put your data on another network unless you really need it, because it always comes at a cost.
For instance that is part of the french navy policy (separate networks). You find it funny, until it saves your ass :)
Sidepoint: weither you believe it's FUD or not, it's a matter of fact that there is a real market here. A lot of medium to large companies are actually totally reluctant to put anything in the cloud. That's part of why you see github:fi, or the hoptoad firewalled version, or the ubuntu private cloud offer.
Another sidepoint: working with vaguely sensitive data at home on an encrypted disk is OK for me, but putting it into an EC2 instance: I would get fired and/or sued (not FUD here, I've been warned!).
The other obvious - it potentially makes your server management much easier, particularly if you need a lot of computing power, or lots of servers quickly.
Iirc it's totally free and clones different amazon AWS API by integrating Eucalyptus (http://open.eucalyptus.com/).
The problem is, that you need to rent/buy the maximum hardware size of your could upfront as amazon does it. Therefore it's a bigh myth you only pay what you use because the provider has to split all costs+interests among the customers (like EC2). Including costs of hardware/infrastructure not currently in use!
If you have your own rack(s), tools like eucalyptus/ubuntu cloud can help you to dynamically scale your apps and use your hardware more efficent.
But remember: To do this it needs more than some instant-on virtual machines: You need to be able to automatically spawn applications with tools like puppet or chef, too. This usually requires some amount of work and brain :-)
Claiming to be able to scale to infinity just because you're using EC2/Eucalyptus/OpenStack is a biiiiiig common lie.
