Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Which is a better option security wise :
1) cheaper option - vps (Iam assuming that if one particular virtual server is hacked,then still other virtual servers on that comp will be safe)

2) make diff. dedcted database server (but it can be hacked too afterall,right?)

3)OR ... make 2 diff. servers on same computer listning to diff. ports!(will dis be called the shared server condition)

Did i correctly assume about vps and dedctd servers ??? and the 3rd case ? please clear my doubts and suggest a solution for my situation!

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Lucas Kauffman, Gilles, Scott Pack, Polynomial, Iszi Oct 7 '12 at 14:51

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Please format your question with proper punctuation. We do not demand correct English, but we like to see at least an effort :) – Lucas Kauffman Oct 5 '12 at 19:42
Yes, please do make your poster clearer. I would also say VM is going to be your best bet. Even if the instance is compromised it would take specific mal-ware to access the box. – November Oct 5 '12 at 22:46
Agreed with Lucas here. StackExchange has high standards in terms of question and answer quality. Proper spelling and punctuation isn't required, especially for non-native speakers, but questions which show no effort (e.g. usin txtspk like dis lol its rly hrd 2 undrstnd) will simply be downvoted or deleted. Please have a read through the FAQ and How to Ask. – Polynomial Oct 6 '12 at 9:50

The problem with VPS is that it will be dependent on the security of the host and the technology used. For instance if a VPS gets hacked on a server using VMWare there will be no known attacks to break through to the hypervisor. Howver with LXC there have been some attacks where it was possible to break out of the jail (both technologies are very different).

Segregation of services is very good, not just only for security but also for availability and scaling. This provided that the credentials for the (administrative) users are different on both machines.

How exactly is your 3 differentiating from your 1?

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.