server cloud Piergiorgio Venuti

Server Cloud

server cloud

A cloud server or VPS (Virtual Private Server) is a fully-fledged server with its own operating system and well-defined hardware features only that unlike a classic server it shares physical resources with other virtual machines in this way more VPS can be run simultaneously on the same server (hypervisor).

This virtualization technique allows significant cost savings and an optimization of hardware resources as it is possible to run multiple operating systems on the same hardware.

 

Server Cloud – Pros cons

Pros:

 

   ♦ Migration: It is possible to “move” (migrate) a VPS from one server (hypervisor) to another (even without interruption of service).

Example: You have created a VPS on a hypervisor in Italy and you want to move it to a server in America. With a VPS, as long as the Cloud Provider has another Datacenter in America, this can be done quickly.

   ♦ Scalability: It is the possibility of increasing or decreasing the hardware resources (CPU, RAM, Disk, etc) without rebuilding the VPS and in some cases without restarting it in full transparency to users who use the services provided.
Example: A VPS of 2 cores, 1 GB of RAM and 20 GB of disk has been created but after a few months we realize that the RAM memory is insufficient for the services provided and it is necessary to increase it. With a VPS it is very easy to solve this problem, just increase the RAM from the configuration panel and the new configuration will be applied (in the case of linux systems without the need to reboot).

   ♦ Autoscaling: It is the possibility to increase or decrease the resources (scaling) automatically according to well defined hardware policies. This technique is extremely valid in cases of load peaks.
Example: A VPS has been created with 2 cores, 1 GB of RAM and 20 GB but in some periods of the year due to the high user access these resources are not sufficient, then in this case it is possible to configure these policies:

a) If the CPU is at 90% for more than 1h then the CPU of a core increases every 30min for a maximum of 6 cores and then if the CPU is less than 10% for more than 1h decrease the CPU of a core every 30 min up to a minimum of 2 cores.

b) If the RAM is 99% for more than 1h then increase the RAM of 1Gb every 30min for a maximum of 32Gb and then if the RAM is less than 50% for more than 1h decrease the RAM of a core every 30 min until at a minimum of 1Gb.

   ♦ Low cost: by comparing the cost of a VPS to that of a fiscal server like hardware resources, the cost of a VPS is much lower, especially considering that some cost items are already included in the VPS fee. :
   a) Energy consumption;  

   b) Internet band;

   c) Cost of public IP addresses;

   d) Costs related to housing (cooling, surveillance, etc); 

   e) Firewall;

   f) Technical assistance.

Cons:

   ♦ Shared resources: Depending on the configurations and characteristics of the Cloud Provider, some hardware resources, such as the CPU, could be shared so performance may be lower than a physical server. This condition is not always true as it is possible to request a 100% allocation on all hardware resources to your Cloud Provider.

Server Cloud – Limits:

  1. ♦ OS Virtualization: Not all operating systems and platforms can be virtualized (Eg AS400, Apple OS).
  2. ♦ Band: Although this is not an inherent problem of virtualization itself there could be latency differences in the Internet connection between a physical server in the company and a VPS if users are predominantly within the company and if the company has not an adequate Internet line.
    Example: A physical server in the customer’s DMZ is accessed by its LAN users via a 10Gb line, if the server is virtualized and becomes a VPS at a Cloud provider, access to it is transmitted via the client’s Internet line which may be more slow.

Server Cloud – False myths:

  1. ♦ A VPS does not have the same performance as a physical server: By allocating 100% of the physical resources and correctly dimensioning a VPS the latter has nothing to envy to a physical server from a performance point of view.
  2. ♦ A VPS is less secure than a physical server: A VPS can have the same degree of security as a physical server because it is possible to adopt the same security measures (Firewall, Antivirus, Hardening, VPN) applicable to a Fiscal server.

Check out the Cloud Server

[btnsx id=”2931″]

Useful links:

IaaS | Cloud | Infrastructure as a Service

Let’s Encrypt Free Certificates for all Webhosting users

Alternative to the NAS

CloudFlare free Plesk extension for Webhosting users

Demo Cloud Servers

Free Microsoft Windows licenses

New templates for VPS

VPS

Docs

How to have your computer network under control

VPS Metered – Cloud location

ownCloud

Home

Share


RSS

More Articles…

Categories …

Tags

RSS darkreading

RSS Full Disclosure

  • [SYSS-2024-030]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - OS Command Injection (CWE-78) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-030 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Tested Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Vulnerability Type: OS Command Injection (CWE-78) Risk Level: High Solution Status: Open Manufacturer Notification: 2024-04-05 Solution Date: - Public Disclosure: 2024-09-04...
  • [SYSS-2024-029]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component (CWE-1395) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-029 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401 Tested Version(s): 5.2401 Vulnerability Type: Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component (CWE-1395) Use of Unmaintained Third Party Components (CWE-1104) Risk Level: High Solution Status: Fixed...
  • [SYSS-2024-028]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (CWE-312) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-028 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Tested Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Vulnerability Type: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (CWE-312) Risk Level: Medium Solution Status: Open Manufacturer Notification: 2024-04-05 Solution Date: - Public...
  • [SYSS-2024-027]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-027 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Tested Version(s): 5.2401, 6.00PL01 Vulnerability Type: Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) Risk Level: High Solution Status: Open Manufacturer Notification: 2024-04-05 Solution Date: - Public Disclosure:...
  • [SYSS-2024-026]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (CWE-434) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-026 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401 Tested Version(s): 5.2401 Vulnerability Type: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (CWE-434) Risk Level: High Solution Status: Fixed Manufacturer Notification: 2024-04-05 Solution Date: 2024-07-31 Public Disclosure:...
  • [SYSS-2024-025]: C-MOR Video Surveillance - Relative Path Traversal (CWE-23) September 6, 2024
    Posted by Matthias Deeg via Fulldisclosure on Sep 05Advisory ID: SYSS-2024-025 Product: C-MOR Video Surveillance Manufacturer: za-internet GmbH Affected Version(s): 5.2401 Tested Version(s): 5.2401 Vulnerability Type: Relative Path Traversal (CWE-23) Risk Level: High Solution Status: Fixed Manufacturer Notification: 2024-04-05 Solution Date: 2024-07-31 Public Disclosure: 2024-09-04 CVE...
  • Backdoor.Win32.Symmi.qua / Remote Stack Buffer Overflow (SEH) September 6, 2024
    Posted by malvuln on Sep 05Discovery / credits: Malvuln (John Page aka hyp3rlinx) (c) 2024 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/6e81618678ddfee69342486f6b5ee780.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: x.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Symmi.qua Vulnerability: Remote Stack Buffer Overflow (SEH) Description: The malware listens on two random high TCP ports, when connecting (ncat) one port will return a single character like "♣" […]
  • HackTool.Win32.Freezer.br (WinSpy) / Insecure Credential Storage September 6, 2024
    Posted by malvuln on Sep 05Discovery / credits: Malvuln (John Page aka hyp3rlinx) (c) 2024 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/2992129c565e025ebcb0bb6f80c77812.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: x.com/malvuln Threat: HackTool.Win32.Freezer.br (WinSpy) Vulnerability: Insecure Credential Storage Description: The malware listens on TCP ports 443, 80 and provides a web interface for remote access to victim information like screenshots etc.The […]
  • Backdoor.Win32.Optix.02.b / Weak Hardcoded Credentials September 6, 2024
    Posted by malvuln on Sep 05Discovery / credits: Malvuln (John Page aka hyp3rlinx) (c) 2024 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/706ddc06ebbdde43e4e97de4d5af3b19.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: x.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Optix.02.b Vulnerability: Weak Hardcoded Credentials Description: Optix listens on TCP port 5151 and is packed with ASPack (2.11d). Unpacking is trivial set breakpoints on POPAD, RET, run and dump […]
  • Backdoor.Win32.JustJoke.21 (BackDoor Pro) / Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution September 6, 2024
    Posted by malvuln on Sep 05Discovery / credits: Malvuln (John Page aka hyp3rlinx) (c) 2024 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/4dc39c05bcc93e600dd8de16f2f7c599.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: x.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.JustJoke.21 (BackDoor Pro - v2.0b4) Vulnerability: Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution Family: JustJoke Type: PE32 MD5: 4dc39c05bcc93e600dd8de16f2f7c599 SHA256:...

Customers

Newsletter

{subscription_form_1}