After reading this article, I had a few dissenting thoughts, maybe someone will provide their perspective?
The article suggests not running critical workloads virtually based on a failure scenario of the hosting environment (such as ransomware on hypervisor).
That does allow using the ‘all your eggs in one basket’ phrase, so I agree that running at least one instance of a service physically could be justified, but threat actors will be trying to time execution of attacks against both if possible. Adding complexity works both ways here.
I don’t really agree with the comments about not patching however. The premise that the physical workload or instance would be patched or updated more than the virtual one seems unrelated. A hesitance to patch systems is more about up time vs downtime vs breaking vs risk in my opinion.
Is your organization running critical workloads virtual like anything else, combination physical and virtual, or combination of all previous plus cloud solutions (off prem)?
You can prevent downtime by mirroring your container repository and keeping a cold stack in a different cloud service. We wrote an loe, decided the extra maintenance wasn’t worth the effort to plan for provider failures. But then providers only sign contracts if you are in their cloud and you end up doing it anyways.
Unfortunately most victims aren’t using best practices let alone industry standards. The author definitely learned the wrong lesson though.