If you have to run potentially insecure executables, would using a separate laptop have any security benefit compared to a virtual machine, or would it be worse in the sense that the machine's firmware could be forever overwritten by malicious software, or the machine could infect other PCs in the local network? What risks do both solutions carry from a realistic point of view?

1 Answer 1


If you think that the executable is potentially unsafe, It is always better to access it in a network isolated PC. Considering threats like the recent zero-day vulnerability in VirtualBox (read more). We can never be sure of what's out there already. You can run it inside a VM inside the isolated PC with proper firewall rules configured as a safety precaution and always use up-to-date software.

  • I agree in principle but I wonder about how realistic this is. Virtualization is neat for conserving resources and time but it is increased complexity and therefore easier to exploit, usually. On the other hand using a physical machine may mean condemning it forever to not participate in any production or sensitive network, ever again. In terms of pure risk with physical is that someone plugs it into a live network in the future. Risk with virtual is that the system is now more vulnerable because of complexity, but this may not realistically matter if you control types of malware in tests
    – HackneyB
    Feb 3, 2019 at 17:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .