IBM is now offering some security to help make their not very secure cloud "block-thing" less unsecured. This coming after the boasting about how secure the not-very-secure offering was to begin with and what we all knew wasn't possible at all. It's still not possible but apparently this makes that not as not-possible and less not-very-secure.
Before giving this to much consideration, remember this is coming from the same organization that produced this ridiculous statement.
"Business require data consistency. Public blockchains have clever algorithms … but the blockchain in some of these architectures could drift, you could have two versions of truth. In a business, that level of inconsistency can’t be tolerated."
Which most could argue as one of the more ridiculous blockchain statements made in 2016. It goes to show you how much IBM might (not) actually understand about blockchain technology or at least the guy who said this and he has "blockchain" in his title.
Potential or Waste of Time?
IBM's offering, and there's little doubt they'll sucker allot of unsuspecting CTO's into the cloudware, is called .. "secure blockchain cloud environment" ... they say it's designed to protect against "back doors" the company claims could occur in other "cloud-based blockchain networks".
Ummm. Yeah. I don't think there's too many of these around and if there is who cares. If its in a cloud under your thumb then you don't really need a blockchain in the first place and if you are putting it there then you pretty much limit its security by confining it in your cloud.
They keep using that term and it's humorous, "cloud-based blockchain" and they use it along with "highly secure". Nobody wants "highly secure". They want "secure". Period.
Why do they think that "not completely secure, but highly secure" is OK? Why is the security of our data and transactions thereof not deserving of absolute security? Given that, why would we want to turn down absolute security at no cost to pay IBM for less security?
It's like an "almost-solution" trying its best to invent a problem to solve in an environment self-inflicted with limitations. It's a damn good thing firefighters and weapons makers don't follow this type of practice in their business models.
The problem is that a cloud environment cannot be secure because it is contained in a cloud environment. That means it can be breached and it may be safer than another cloud environments its still vulnerable and some human somewhere holds key to stuff. That said, I can't think of too many "cloud blockchains". Nodes perhaps, but an entire network? What is the point and why would anyone want to do this when they already have software to work like this in this environment?
They also keep making up quotes to ask themselves once they come up with something that can be an answer and can put the combo in a press release. It's just silly.
This is the kind of limitation blockchain technology is meant to get rid of. The middlemen, the weak links in the chain. Why is the persistence to sneak it back in? Oh yes ... money. They want to sell cloud subscriptions. Another reason why you have to be weary of these "cloud people". That is in the event the statements made by the lead blockhead weren't enough.
To top it all off, they already said things were "highly secure" and now this "extra security" might be needed. If it wasn't secure when they said it was secure how are we supposed to believe it's secure now?
Oh wait .. that's right ... it's just "highly secure", it'll probably be fine. It'll unlikely be breached tomorrow. It's highly possible you're data will be fine.
Yes, about as much as I'll probably highly recommend this to anyone.
The truth is that it's not secure. It's not secure because it cannot be secure. It's flawed and that's why we're trying to get away from it and use technology like blockchain. By that I do mean blockchain technology, not what IBM is running in a cloud.
One Last Quote for the Road
"Clients tell us that one of the inhibitors of the adoption of blockchain is the concern about security," ... "While there is a sense of urgency to pioneer blockchain for business, most organizations need help to define the ideal cloud environment that enables blockchain networks to run securely in the cloud."
I'm not making this stuff up, these are the actual words this man said. Let's start with the opening line - " the inhibitors of the adoption of blockchain is the concern about security". If this is not as ridiculous as the "two truths" brain fart, it's a close second.
Of course to solve all of these oddly-fictitious sounding concerns, IBM introduces its version of the tech by making things less-secure, less absolute, and less trustworthy by inserting a limiting cloud environment. However one thing does increase, their bank account balance.
He's apparently concerned that the technology he is promoting doesn't provide the technology he's promoting, now it all makes sense ... obviously ... he's been working at IBM for way too long.