<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PCI Compliance and Server Virtualization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://broaddev.com/2008/11/17/pci-compliance-and-server-virtualization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/11/17/pci-compliance-and-server-virtualization/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Derek Crawford</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/11/17/pci-compliance-and-server-virtualization/#comment-1160</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Crawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=275#comment-1160</guid>
		<description>While I think that there are reasonable means to securing virtual guests such that host security is less of an issue (and maybe that is what the spec writers are banking on?) I do heartily agree with the points you are making in this article in principle. If securing the private data of the customers is the end goal then no point of access or control should be overlooked.. maybe minimized but never dismissed as not important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I think that there are reasonable means to securing virtual guests such that host security is less of an issue (and maybe that is what the spec writers are banking on?) I do heartily agree with the points you are making in this article in principle. If securing the private data of the customers is the end goal then no point of access or control should be overlooked.. maybe minimized but never dismissed as not important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
