{"id":2186,"date":"2007-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-23T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2007\/06\/23\/security-fears-slow-virtualization\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:40:51","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:40:51","slug":"security-fears-slow-virtualization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2007\/06\/23\/security-fears-slow-virtualization\/","title":{"rendered":"Security Fears Slow Virtualization"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Concerns about security may be slowing the adoption of virtualization technology, according to a report issued yesterday by research firm emedia.  Some 51 percent of current users think that virtualization poses some new risks, but the figure rises to 57 percent among those planning to use the technology within the next six months &#8212; and to 66 percent among those planning to adopt it within the next six to 18 months.  In April, Gartner issued a report that predicts virtual servers will be less secure than physical servers through 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Among the respondents to the emedia survey, the chief security concerns were about virtualization patching and updates (32 percent), guest-to-guest attacks (27 percent), and the addition of new host software (22 percent).<\/p>\n<p>IT professionals plan to attack these threats by taking various safety measures, including staff training\/improving understanding (51 percent), patching\/updating\/hardening servers (38 percent), using firewalls (30 percent), and separating networks\/subnetting\/routing (25 percent).<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.darkreading.com\/document.asp?doc_id=127420&#038;WT.svl=news1_2<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trends"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2186","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2186"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2186\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4673,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2186\/revisions\/4673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}