HMC

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

While it is possible that if someone gets into the one HMC then they can access both systems isn't it also true that if they can access one HMC it's likely they can access both?

Picture this:  One of our data centers is a few hours north of me.  The other is a few hours south of me.  If I can access one HMC from the office and attack both Power systems then isn't it likely that I can access the other HMC also?  If so, then what does limiting one HMC to one Power system buy me?  Inconvenience and lack of redundancy with no additional security?

Sure I could limit the HMC's to only being accessible while physically on site but is that really practical in our situation?  If I'm at the one data center and something happens at the other then what do I do?  If I made 3 trips to a single data center in a single year then, based on past history, that would be a very busy year.

We do not have a physical HMC with it's own attached monitor standing there waving it's arm saying "attack me".  We use vHMC.  Therefore it's unlikely that one of the DC employees will access our cage, pull out a KVM tray, open up the HMC and attack Power Systems at both locations.

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

Thanks for the feedback Robert. I understand your point of having redundant hmc which makes life easier but if i think from security perspective and the ongoing cyberattacks across organisation then still redundant hmc setup concerns me.

In this scenario, HMC will have access to only one server in one location. Similarly DR site will have one hmc with access to its local server only. Hence, if hmc at site 1 is compromised there is no way to connect to hmc at Site 2. Does this makes sense?

Regards,

Rohit

While it is possible that if someone gets into the one HMC then they can access both systems isn't it also true that if they can access one HMC it's likely they can access both?

Picture this:  One of our data centers is a few hours north of me.  The other is a few hours south of me.  If I can access one HMC from the office and attack both Power systems then isn't it likely that I can access the other HMC also?  If so, then what does limiting one HMC to one Power system buy me?  Inconvenience and lack of redundancy with no additional security?

Sure I could limit the HMC's to only being accessible while physically on site but is that really practical in our situation?  If I'm at the one data center and something happens at the other then what do I do?  If I made 3 trips to a single data center in a single year then, based on past history, that would be a very busy year.

We do not have a physical HMC with it's own attached monitor standing there waving it's arm saying "attack me".  We use vHMC.  Therefore it's unlikely that one of the DC employees will access our cage, pull out a KVM tray, open up the HMC and attack Power Systems at both locations.

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

Thanks for the feedback Robert. I understand your point of having redundant hmc which makes life easier but if i think from security perspective and the ongoing cyberattacks across organisation then still redundant hmc setup concerns me.

In this scenario, HMC will have access to only one server in one location. Similarly DR site will have one hmc with access to its local server only. Hence, if hmc at site 1 is compromised there is no way to connect to hmc at Site 2. Does this makes sense?

Regards,

Rohit

While it is possible that if someone gets into the one HMC then they can access both systems isn't it also true that if they can access one HMC it's likely they can access both?

Picture this:  One of our data centers is a few hours north of me.  The other is a few hours south of me.  If I can access one HMC from the office and attack both Power systems then isn't it likely that I can access the other HMC also?  If so, then what does limiting one HMC to one Power system buy me?  Inconvenience and lack of redundancy with no additional security?

Sure I could limit the HMC's to only being accessible while physically on site but is that really practical in our situation?  If I'm at the one data center and something happens at the other then what do I do?  If I made 3 trips to a single data center in a single year then, based on past history, that would be a very busy year.

We do not have a physical HMC with it's own attached monitor standing there waving it's arm saying "attack me".  We use vHMC.  Therefore it's unlikely that one of the DC employees will access our cage, pull out a KVM tray, open up the HMC and attack Power Systems at both locations.

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?

Hello,

In a dual site setup i know the redundant hmc's has many advantages including the both can control the power systems at a time if one fails. But i was thinking more on the security side here. Example, we have 2 sites production and DR site. We have configured redundant hmc's which can manage either of the systems across the two site. But let's say if  hmc at the DR site is compromised site then the chances of manipulating the production systems with this hmc is really high ? Is it my correct assumption or am i missing something here?