Hey expanoit, There was a small part that jumped out at me when I read the article earlier: "In recent years, both of them are said to have bought or leased thousands of miles of fiber-optic cables for their own exclusive use. They had reason to think, insiders said, that their private, internal networks were safe from prying eyes." It seems as if both Yahoo and Google assumed that since they were private circuits that they didn't have to encrypt. This would've added cost in engineering, hardware, and in the end, overall throughput; I would assume they saw it as a low possibility that anyone would (a) have knowledge of the their traffic inter-site and (b) would have the ability to not only accomplish the task but not get caught as well. This is just my take on the situation and I'm sure there are others more experienced that could offer a more detailed perspective with much less speculation. Thanks. Sincerely, Anthony R Junk Network Engineer (410) 929-1838 anthonyrjunk@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:48 PM, explanoit <explanoit.nanog@explanoit.com>wrote:
As a top-posting IT generalist pleb, can someone explain why Google/Yahoo did not already encrypt their data between DCs? Why is my data encrypted over the internet from my computer to theirs, but they don't encrypt the data when it goes outside their building and all the fancy access controls they like to talk about?
Thank you for your feedback, explanoit
On 2013-10-30 13:46, Jacque O'Lantern wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/**world/national-security/nsa-** infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-**google-data-centers-worldwide-** snowden-documents-say/2013/10/**30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-** d89d714ca4dd_story.html<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html>