[biot]

To paraphrase what you said: "I didn't take [statement A] seriously until [statement B]."

statement A = EC2 was owned statement B = engineers at Amazon forbidden from using AWS

Perhaps English isn't your first language, but the way you've phrased it, you're relying on statement B as evidence/proof of statement A, directly implying a connection between the two. It's difficult to read it any other way.

Rewording your original comment: "It was only when that I heard that engineers at Amazon were forbidden from using AWS that I took seriously the comment that EC2 was owned."

[joecode]

Thanks for the reply. There is a connection, of course, but it is not that Amazon knows. Statement B is evidence in the sense that it suggests Amazon does not believe security is sufficiently iron-clad around EC2, which would allow for statement A to be possible in the first place.

I honestly did not expect my comment to create such angst. I recognize that the wording was a bit confusing, but it seems the main thing people are upset about is that I am spreading FUD. Of course that would be quite inappropriate if it was completely unfounded, but I have stated exactly where my concerns came from, so it seems perfectly legit to me.

Your reply is very reasonable and polite, but I am disappointed at the bulk of knee-jerk reactions to this post, as well as their passive aggressive/ad-hominen nature.

Perhaps I am just in a poor mood, but I believe I will be moving on from HN. It was one of the few excuses left for me to procrastinate, so at least I should be more productive. ;)

EDIT: This, by the way, is an excellent article, though somewhat dated, on some of the security shortcomings of EC2. Note it does not address the "nightmare scenario" that Xen (the virtual machine software) is itself vulnerable.

http://cloudsecurity.org/blog/2009/04/08/is-amazon-aws-reall...