backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by greylica.. on Jun 3 at 10:27 AM

Microsoft insists Windows IS secure; claims Google products and OS X are the ones that are increasingly insecure

Yesterday we contacted Microsoft seeking comment on the news that Google was dumping Windows at its headquarters due to "security concerns" and instead offering employees a choice between only a Mac or a Linux system.  The official response we received was that there was no response -- Microsoft wasn't yet commenting on the news.

This morning, Windows Team member Brandon LeBlanc 
did at last issue an official response from Microsoft.  In the blog response, he sounded quite offended and called out Apple and Google on their own security track records, while defending Microsoft.

On Apple he writes:

Macs are under attack by high-risk malware... Microsoft makes the security of our customers a huge priority.

And on Google he writes:

There is some irony here that is hard to overlook. For starters, check out this story from Mashable a few months ago where it was reported that Yale University had halted their move to Gmail (and their move to Google’s Google Apps for Education package) citing both security and privacy concerns.

He follows that up with a long list of links to steps Microsoft is taking to buff up its own security including Windows firewall, encryption improvements; Windows Update security fixes; parental controls; filters; and Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) memory protections found in Windows 7.

Ultimately LeBlanc raises some good points -- Windows 7 is much more secure thanks largely to Microsoft's actions.  Its memory protection technologies, free firewall, and free antivirus/antimalware software have tremendously improved PC security.

That said, Google's OS of choice -- Linux (the basis of the upcoming Google Chrome OS) -- and Apple's Mac OS X ultimately remain more secure at the present due to obscurity.  Apple hacker Charlie Miller once likened Windows to a house with bars on it in the worse part of town, while OS X was like a house with no locks in the countryside.  The comparison is remarkably apt.

As long as Windows enjoys a healthy lead, it will also be the highest profile target.  And there will be 
some attackers with enough cleverness and skills to break through even the toughest protections.  But it is not simple enough to say that Google made the right choice (improved security) for the wrong reasons (arguing Windows is inherently less secure).  Because in giving up Windows, Google is sacrificing a great deal of functionality and software that simply is not currently available for OS X or Linux distributions



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google still needs to update
By Wolfgangap on 6/2/2010 2:02:03 PM , Rating: 5
I also think Microsoft should point out that the machine that was attacked on Google's end was not up-to-date. No system if unpatched will remain secure.

It was running XP with IE6. What was Google expecting? Their IT staff is to blame, not Microsoft this time.




RE: Google still needs to update
By TheDoc9 on 6/2/2010 2:09:16 PM , Rating: 5
I find it hard to believe that google has stopped using windows altogether. How will they test any of their software for windows? I call shins, this is straight PR likely to somehow tie into their new OS launch.


RE: Google still needs to update
By AssBall on 6/2/2010 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 4
It will be funny when Google all switches over to crhome and productivity goes straight down the toilet.


RE: Google still needs to update
By sebmel on 6/2/2010 6:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
Mick misses the point.

They're smart people at Google, the company's rich too... they can lock down Windows securely, and afford to wet-nurse any amount of installations with armies of technicians, if necessary. This isn't even about the fact that Windows exploits tend more often to be remote than those of Linux or Mac OS.

Google is branching out:

Android OS versus Apple and Windows
Chrome OS versus the iPhone OS and Windows

Google want to know all about you and serve all your ads... via your PC browser, your TV, your cellphone and your tablet.

They've been attacking Apple recently with the 'we're more open' line... Google the company that will never let you delete your emails from their backup servers and which doesn't ask permission to data-mine incoming emails.

Now they are attacking Microsoft: who know all about FUD. Google are engaging in a war on two fronts. Move off Windows... be seen to have confidence in your own products (based on Linux)... suggest insecurity in competitor products... not too hard when that competitor OS was so ripe for exploitation it spawned hundreds of thousands of malware scams.

Microsoft are having a hard time building a reputation for stability and security... and rightly so. You don't mess that up for over a decade and then expect the public to develop collective amnesia overnight. Microsoft thought its monopoly made it impervious to public disappointment in its products. Google thinks the public will hear this and be pleased to hear about Google OS hardware in a year or two.

The stage is set:
Will Google leverage its free web apps and free OS to dominate ad sales?
Will they restrict access to Google maps and Google Earth?
Will they charge for them and bundle with their own OS as Apple does?
Will Google get TV right and end the basic home PC market?

Will Microsoft polish up its reputation and maintain sales despite a good free alternative?
Will they have to bundle access to their own web aps?
Will Microsoft find OS sales harder and find itself copying Apple as a hardware company?

Will Apple manage to maintain sales based on attractive design and tight OS/hardware integration?
Will Apple have to develop web apps that its competitors can exclude it from?

They are all rich companies. They can all transform. They are populated by smart employees.

Which has the vision?

For my money Google is currently in the strongest position. It can give away what the others currently make money from and still be profitable. Google Earth, Google maps, Orkut, Panoramia, Google Docs, Picasa, and more, all leveraged to make money out of ads.
Their Achilles heel is a potential privacy backlash.

Next strongest for me is Apple... because of the experience in hardware/software integration. There is always a market for really well made devices. Their Achilles heel is that some of those devices are going to look second rate if they don't have equal access to Google's services... and if they do Google still wins ad revenue.

Then Microsoft... they because the dinosaur they laughed at when they were young. Still vastly profitable and with plenty of time to change. Yet recent years have shown them to be run by committee and slow to realise their mistakes. If they keep releasing 'me too' products they are going to lose out. Does Ballmer have vision? If he does the Clippy and the yellow dog aren't saying.


RE: Google still needs to update
By sebmel on 6/2/2010 7:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Should have read:

Google is branching out:

Android versus iPhone and Windows mobile 7
Chrome OS versus the iPad and Windows tablets

Longer term Chrome OS will probably go after Mac OSX and Windows in their consumer formats... just leaving niches for PC gamers and photo/video/music editing.


RE: Google still needs to update
By sebmel on 6/2/2010 7:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Should have read:

Microsoft... they became the lumbering dinosaur they laughed at when they were young (that was IBM).


RE: Google still needs to update
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:25:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ah ha ha ha!!!

Ya, Google is somehow going to be a strong competitor in the OS market. Can't think of any real software developer that's going to start producing products for Google OS.

Good luck to google, if they try to lockdown their services to Google OS. That's a nice quick way for their stocks to drop and pretty much fail as a company. I doubt Google OS will ever command more than 1% of the market (if they even get that high) and locking your products down to just 1%. Fail.

You're not going to grab gamers, as games pretty much only work on Windows. You're not grabbing the corporate world, as Windows is a lot easier to manage. You're not going to grab the regular home user, as they like Windows. Not to mention pretty much every system being sold has Windows by default. You won't grab Mac users, as well, they like Macs. You might grab some Linux users, as they want to try it out. Then, they'll go right back to whatever flavor of Linux they had before.

You're delusional if you really think Google is ever going to be much of a competitor in the OS field.


RE: Google still needs to update
By iFX on 6/2/2010 7:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait!


RE: Google still needs to update
By DanNeely on 6/2/2010 3:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't. It's no longer a standard option for an employee desktop; instead each windows system must be approved by the CIO.

The way I'd do it if would be either have them run without an external internet access, or be massively firewalled to the internet and not have any connection to the intranet.

This would allow for internal testing of new sites in IE/Chrome for Windows, and with a sneakernet transfer of the executable the testing of dev builds of Chrome for Windows on external sites while minimizing ability of a compromised windows box from being able to threaten anything of value on the intranet. Requiring any data from an external windows system to be copied to a *nix/OSX system would prevent USB autorun viruses from infecting the internal network if the external facing machine was compromised.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Mitch101 on 6/2/2010 3:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't everyone at Google be using Linux and Google Apps?

This sound like Google having a bit of a hissy fit but the mouth was faster than the brain.


RE: Google still needs to update
By DanNeely on 6/2/2010 3:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Since they're a web based company and presumably all their main business apps are provided via the web for 99% of employee's it shouldn't matter what OS their browser runs in. :Likewise web pages can be programmed on any platform so there's no need to lockin there either.

Presumably it was cheaper to support multiple OSes at the corporate IT level to let Joe Googler run his browser on his favorite OS instead of training Joe to in Linux 101. "They're making me use <Stupid OS I don't understand/Hate>" is bad for morale which probably factored into their decision as well, and the Googleplex prides itself on being a great place to work.


RE: Google still needs to update
By rs1 on 6/2/2010 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 4
If nothing else, this article makes me glad that I decided against working at Google. I'd sooner cut my hands off with a rusty hacksaw than do development on a Mac, and Linux just can't compete with Windows in terms of features and ease of use. Properly configured (i.e. dev tools added to system path, command prompt pinned to taskbar and set to run in admin mode, etc.), Windows 7 makes an excellent development platform. Granted, to get the most of it you really need to install cygwin and add its /bin directory to the system path so that you can have command-line utilities that are actually usable. But that takes all of a few hours and once it is done, there's nothing that a Linux system can do that a Windows 7 machine can't do just as well (if not better).

If I were at Google right now, I would be seriously annoyed at having to replace my Win7 development system with a Linux-based one because of some stupid decision made by the corporate-types higher up.


RE: Google still needs to update
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 6:54:25 PM , Rating: 3
I was actually thinking of working at Google, not anymore. Guess I'll see what General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin have open. Maybe try for MS, but they never seem to have the jobs that I have the skills for.


RE: Google still needs to update
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 6:51:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Since they're a web based company and presumably all their main business apps are provided via the web for 99% of employee's it shouldn't matter what OS their browser runs in. :Likewise web pages can be programmed on any platform so there's no need to lockin there either.


Except that majority of web users are on IE, which is guess what? Windows dependent.

quote:
Presumably it was cheaper to support multiple OSes at the corporate IT level to let Joe Googler run his browser on his favorite OS instead of training Joe to in Linux 101. "They're making me use <Stupid OS I don't understand/Hate>" is bad for morale which probably factored into their decision as well, and the Googleplex prides itself on being a great place to work.


Oh dear god, you've obviously never had to implement multiple OS's in any kind of domain. It's a huge headache for the IT department. Might as well just throw them off a cliff.


By omnicronx on 6/2/2010 4:29:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
instead each windows system must be approved by the CIO.
No.. one person quoted that, 10 others quoted something different, its nothing but heresy and lets be realistic, the CIO? Kind of makes me laugh, as though someone this important is going to spend his time signing off on Windows installations.

This entire thing just makes me laugh, the infected machine that information was a stolen from was a corporately managed machine, not a personal computer. Google has absolutely no excuse here, they claim it was for testing purposes and that is why IE6 was present, but why is a testing machine on a production network in the first place?

This was their fatal flaw, as even developers and testers are not testing against a production network (i.e they are most likely already sandboxed).. The attack was also very sephisticated, the hackers in question had great knowledge of Google infrastructure and pinpointed exactly which parts to hit.

The original payload was apparently downloaded via a social networking scam (by a no name google worker) that forwarded the person to a malicious website, just waiting for target companies to download. At this point when you are being targeted, and you may have an inside man, I don't see what ANY platform is going to do for you. One could just as easily make a malicious website that attacks chromeOS/nix/OSX.. If someone tells you where to hit, and how, how is an OS going to help you?


RE: Google still needs to update
By bug77 on 6/2/2010 5:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
Read the news then. It's all about the OS used on each developer's desktop. Which doesn't mean they can't use remote desktop to connect to some tightly locked down Windows machine in some Google lab.


RE: Google still needs to update
By quiksilvr on 6/2/2010 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 4
It's just a PR stunt to show that Google is in the "trend" of "cool" and "hip" people that don't use smelly Windows. They use shiny, overpriced Apples and Linuxeses.

I mean seriously, what the hell. How can you transform your entire company to OSX and Linux? Not even Apple does that. Both companies have programs that run on Windows and need on-site Window powered computers for troubleshooting and bug fixing.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Smartless on 6/2/2010 2:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. This doesn't quite add up. Say you do have a system set to test your products on an old system. Why is your test system open to the public? On the other hand, say the machine was just old because you:
a) were too cheap to afford it?
b) didn't get around to replacing all those machines?

Either way, why is OSX a choice? It will cost more just train people much less buy all new machines. Linux makes some sense but isn't Chrome built of the IE kernel?


RE: Google still needs to update
By The0ne on 6/2/2010 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
What we need here is a BS meter. This can be because of the story itself or the news reporting.


By ChristopherO on 6/2/2010 4:34:16 PM , Rating: 1
Chrome is built on WebKit, the same engine as Safari. Why? I don't know... It was s stupid decision from the start.

"I know, lets use our competitor's technology in our own products!" It just sounds stupid, because it's a tacit approval of what Apple is doing. Which begs the question, why not use their stuff instead?

What confuses me... Google donates millions per year to the Mozilla Foundation. If management had half a brain they should have based Chrome on Firefox since it wasn't directly linked to one of their biggest competitors... And they were already shelling out huge cash for Firefox R&D.


RE: Google still needs to update
By funkyd99 on 6/2/2010 2:16:52 PM , Rating: 3
Google will have an even harder time updating and keeping track of updates if all of their machines are running OSX and Linux. Microsoft makes it dead easy to roll out and keep track of updates in a corporate environment.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Taft12 on 6/2/2010 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's dead easy for OSX, Red Hat and Ubuntu as well.


RE: Google still needs to update
By funkyd99 on 6/2/2010 3:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
WSUS is free with a copy of Windows Server. $500 for ARD with OSX. RHN subscription with Red Hat. And dead easy with Ubuntu? Not from what I've read, but feel free to point me in the right direction.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Taft12 on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Google still needs to update
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2010 4:14:32 PM , Rating: 5
Linux never has, never is, and never will be "easier to use" than Windows. Can we get real for a minute here, please?


RE: Google still needs to update
By 67STANG on 6/2/2010 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
But but but... what about Lindows?!? That was l33t before they pulled the plug. =)


RE: Google still needs to update
By Goatjoe on 6/2/2010 6:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has a SUS service included with their servers too. I have never used ARD to update my machines. Install a quick program remotely if a user needs it, yes - but for the updates Apple releases, no. ARD is for more day to day administration and monitoring IMHO. Much easier to create a NetInstall image when you want to update your systems.


RE: Google still needs to update
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ppl use WSUS? We sport SMS. Does the same and a lot more. Course, costs money. Then, you can update the OS and all apps with a single product.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2010 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
It's sad, but a majority of businesses are still running XP. Even worst, most of THOSE aren't even running service pack 3.

Look, I can understand not diving into Vista before SP1, but come on! It's time to bite the bullet, and use Windows7. And if your old as crap software doesn't work with that, FIND or write some that WILL. Or learn how to use Virtual XP mode, something.


RE: Google still needs to update
By The0ne on 6/2/2010 3:46:14 PM , Rating: 3
hahaha love your comments :D While I do agree, it's not that simple for many common sense reasons. If you ever taken a look into most city halls you'll notice employees are using many "older" technologies. To change this requires almost impossible feats :)

1. Money, of course
2. Resources and Management
3. Time

The the most important one of all, distraction from your comfort zone. Why change what works? :) Even big companies share the same ill fate as some of the granny run city halls :D I've seen big companies running custom PDM software that literally crawls to get anything processed.

And oddly enough, this is also why Windows OS is targeted in the first place. People get comfortable and thus lazy; therefore, it's much easier to hack in. Add that by the millions and it's heaven.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2010 3:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hi TheOne, thank you:D

I agree there are big issues involved. But I would think these would impact small business a lot more. We're talking about Google here. Money isn't a problem, I would like to assume they have competent IT.. I mean, shouldn't they try to stay on the cutting edge?

And yes, you're right. The thing about security is, the most secure you are, the less you pursue security.


RE: Google still needs to update
By AssBall on 6/2/2010 9:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would like to assume they have competent IT..


One would normally assume so, until they got hacked by China through a roflcopter ineptly set up system on their network. Like they were asking for it...

I too have to assume they have very competent IT dept. So it makes the whole subject of why they are doing this really shadier.


By Donkeyshins on 6/2/2010 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

1. Money, of course
2. Resources and Management
3. Time

Of course, what these IT departments don't account for in their calculus to stay on XP v. upgrading to a newer OS is the lost opportunity costs that result from an exploit to an unpatched / insecure system.


RE: Google still needs to update
By Redwin on 6/2/2010 3:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree!
...
and I'm doing it from my company-mandated XP workstation here at the office. Not sure if that helps my point or hurts it... =P

Honestly i don't think its necessarily fear that software won't work (I've yet to find anything that runs on XP that won't also run on Win 7), its just that licensing costs to upgrade everyone's desktop are easy to remove from a tight budget when management sees XP as working "just fine"


RE: Google still needs to update
By satveeraj on 6/2/2010 5:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody once said...the only way to be 100% secure is to unplug and turn off your PC.


RE: Google still needs to update
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
Then I bust into your office and steal your computer. Bam, not secure enough.

Physical security is also important.


Not so secure
By SmilingMan on 6/2/2010 3:18:59 PM , Rating: 4
All stupid "my os is better than your os" idiocies aside, this doesn't strike me as necessarily the most secure move.

Yes, Apple has "security through obscurity", in that nobody targets it... but this is Google. All of a sudden there's a grade A massive payoff for targetting Macs - you get the chance of hacking Google!

Google Mac OS is like living in a house with no locks on the doors or windows out in the country right after advertising in the paper and on TV about your priceless collection of huge diamonds and gold bars. It's possible that the "not worth the effort" defence might not work any more.




RE: Not so secure
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:36:46 PM , Rating: 1
If you plan to hack Google to make money or steal technology, sure.

If you are doing it for prestige, what's the point. More prestige to be had by punching babies.


RE: Not so secure
By SmilingMan on 6/2/2010 10:14:57 PM , Rating: 3
The serious hacking isn't done these days for lolz or cool points. It's done by criminal organisations with the intent of making money. Google is a good target.


One of the best moves of google.
By greylica on 6/2/2010 7:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Google support many GNU/Free Projects including the one that I like and use Most -> Blender 3D. Aside from what most of the users of Microsoft Windows think, I am using Linux for years and I have the opposite track of the learning curve when using Windows 7. I felt Linux is very easy to use, few clicks to find what I am looking for, faster in response times, and I felt that Windows 7 is a copy of KDE plasma. But Linux still have drivers for SCSI disks, zip drives, DAT tapes, and old hardware still maintaining a great security level.
Normally Google Free the codes for the community and shares them, and it's a very good thing, even if they have their own codes that aren't free for outside world (internally they are still free), at least, they aren't doing the sucking Patent Troll Game.
The majority of the users that are now ''lazy'' as said in the comments above that are using machines years old with softwares that are jurassic, has the same complaints used to avoid updating their windows, used to avoid Free/GNU/linux distributions in their machines. It's a very destructive behavior, but is interesting, a person that drive a Corolla, when necessary, learn how to drive a Mercedes instantly when the objective is to go to a shopping/supermarket, but they didn't perceive software this way...
The use of *nix/Linux inside Google is a step forward to make better softwares that works better in those environment and ecosystems. The GNU/Free community have to give a full support and lend a hand to Google, in order to avoid even the utilization of Mac OS X closed source environment. May it be the next step ?
You can rate me down to -20, but I have my opinion, Linux is good for me, for my wife, for my friends, enterprise and so on.
And I yet didn't talk anything about freedom that GNU/Free software offers as a plus, that's one of the most important part. It's not a price question, I have paid for others when I need some installations and I am helping free software with translations. I'm free to help other people, and for me, I am happy to be free to do so.
Great Move Google !
GNU/Free software community will be arms wide open for you !




RE: One of the best moves of google.
By damianrobertjones on 6/3/2010 4:04:58 AM , Rating: 3
Then lets replace Microsoft with Linux. Which one? Who decided which flava' gets to be at the top? Then, app writers turn their bloatware eyes to that distro, driver writers stop being slim creators, instead creating drivers that are huge (HP anyone?).

Then, virus writers get interesed and we're back to square one.


By greylica on 6/3/2010 10:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, manufacturers will send their device commands to the windows, linux and mac community, you can use the driver built by the community or the bloated one. Once device manufacturers send their device commands with the cards, GNU/Free software community (and others) has all the tools needed to build and maintain device drivers for that device.
About vírus: Once we know that one thing is malfunctioning, let's fix it ! Let's get databases strictly tied to their command and variables, with memory allocations and adresses tied strictly to the app. Let's get the first interception of the API commands of the softwares analised by the program sintax before commit the command, avoiding overflows/underflows, let's get the numeric variables free from overflow commands or mathematical execution commands. Let's get the doors closed as the first implementation of TCP/IP Sun Microystems proposal did in the past, implementing sockets only for services that are really needed, and not a complete socket proccess open, to make users rely on third part firewall softwares or AV softwares and let's separate definetly the users of the super users.
Well, until now, I have a perception that Linux and the GNU/Free software community tried to do it at their roots, and continue working in solutions for those common development approach problems, obviously new problems arrived with new softwares and new approaches, but developers or involved people can see the codes and fix all of those problems explained above.

Good Vibrations !


Yep, i't s gonna happen .... when?
By drycrust3 on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Yep, i't s gonna happen .... when?
By ClownPuncher on 6/2/2010 3:42:16 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but, what the hell are you saying? Miscrosoft patches vulnerabilities just about whenever they pop up, almost always in a timely manner. Why would you need to pay an antivirus company money? Miscrosoft Security Essentials is free, and works better than 99% of the garbage out there. Don't like that? Try Avast, AVG, Malwarebytes (the list goes on) which also can be had for free

What security concerns do you have that Microsoft hasn't addressed? Perhaps you're blowing smoke? Were you running IE6 in XP SP1? That is called user error, just like Google's idiotic mistake.


By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
They do just like OSX users. Security through obscurity.


.
By adiposity on 6/2/2010 6:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty simple. If your users are going to be browsing the internet, even with Windows 7 they are in great danger of malware unless their administrator access is completely disabled (not great for a lot of people).

On the other hand, if they have a Mac the chances of getting that malware are dramatically lower.

Who cares about real security? From an IT perspective and a percentages perspective, a desktop inside Google's firewall is FAR less likely to get "hacked" (read, the user installs something dangerous) if it is a Mac.

The Mac users around my office give me headaches all the time. But one thing they don't do, is infect their laptops. Can't say the same for the windows users, not by a long shot.




RE: .
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:54:05 PM , Rating: 3
Well, being in IT for the past 11 years and coming from my IT prespective, I care about real security. You'd be the dumbest IT department if you didn't.

If your users are able to infect work computers with malware, your IT department is already dumb and should be fired. All of them. Fired...right now.


As usual, they underestimate
By danobrega on 6/2/2010 2:22:01 PM , Rating: 4
The power of stupidity. Stupid actions or lack of actions are to blame for most of the current security problems.

There is NOTHING no system can do if the user is clicking yes on every dialog it is shown just to see a Jessica Biel picture.

Google should really replace it's stupid employees, or better at the very least educate them. The problem is usually between the chair and the monitor.




Tthey don't use Windows apps for a long time
By serkol on 6/2/2010 2:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because in giving up Windows, Google is sacrificing a great deal of functionality and software that simply is not currently available for OS X or Linux distributions


Every time I saw a Google employee in public, he/she was using Mac OS on a Macbook pro - I've noticed that around 3 years ago, and since I have never saw a Google employee with Windows. I guess they are using only soft that runs on Mac OS, like Eclipse and so on.




By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 7:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or like 80% of Mac users. Bootcamp Windows, so they actually get to use a good OS for a little while.


My exp with windows/mac/linux
By Azure Sky on 6/2/2010 7:33:53 PM , Rating: 4
They all are insecure to a point, the thing is, out of the box windows vista and 7 are FAR FAR more secure then your common linux distro or OSX, sure there arent as many malware apps and viruses that target them, but the fact is that if a script kiddie using freely downloadable tools can get into a system in a few minutes theres a problem.

Vista/7 both are more secure and harder to hack then osx or ur common linux distros, why else do you think that linux and osx where first to be hacked in every hacking challenge thats happened.

Pwn2Own
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/03/26/71213/

"DESPITE THE RABID CLAIMS of Apple fan boys that its software is more secure than anything else on the market, Jobs’ Mob products were the first to be trashed again at a Pwn2Own hacking competition.

In fact flaws in the Iphone OS and zero-day vulnerabilities in Apple’s Safari 4 web browser made a mockery of Apple’s advertising.

Flaws were also found in Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer 8 but apparently hackers had some trouble getting around exploitation mitigations in Windows 7, although eventually they did.

Researcher Charlie Miller, principal security analyst at Independent Security Evaluators, quickly exploited a vulnerability in the desktop version of Safari running on Mac OS X. He won $10,000 for the exploit, which was one of 20 zero-day bugs that Apple fanbois deny exist in OS X.

Miller’s exploit opened up a remote shell, which he accessed and was able to run any malicious code he wanted. We guess it just worked!

Miller said discovering the 20 zero-day vulnerabilities took him only three weeks using three computers, so who knows what he would have found if he had kept looking."

apple security SUCKS because they do not focus on it at all really, they rely on security by obscurity to save them, and I got a feeling thats about to fail them again because hackers and malware makers are seeing apple get a higher profile and are figuring they will Pwn and Own apples arses "for the lulz"

honestly, I will be laughing when google gets hacked again due to osx and linux security flaws that allow somebody to do anything they like with a system that should be, by its user bases account 100% secure!!!!




Clearly a PR move by Google
By masamasa on 6/2/2010 5:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt their security will be significantly better, but we'll have to wait and see. I welcome competition though so us consumers can reap the benefits, unless of course we see more 'price fixing' strategies by these huge corporations.




TERRIBLE.....
By damianrobertjones on 6/2/2010 5:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
Article heading. Please, report the news as it is without the flam baiting tactics to get extra hits. It wasn't an angry blog post.




I hear you, Google!
By themaster08 on 6/3/2010 10:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
My system, which is running Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5, was attacked! I lost everything. God damn Microsoft and their flawed operating systems!

Microsoft will never get a penny from me again!




Angry blog post, stop the presses!
By Taft12 on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki