backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by JohnFx.. on Jun 15 at 7:01 PM


Windows has been reportedly been banned from Google's magical workplaces due to security concerns.  (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

Google will unveil its first personal computer operating system -- Chrome OS -- later this year. Chrome OS is primarily targeted for netbooks and tablets. It is a Linux-type operating system, but is uniquely built around the browser.  (Source: Google)
New hires are being given the choice of using Macs or Linux

Google is one of the most creative and powerful tech companies in the world, thus its actions are scrutinized at times.  However, it's hard not to see a bit of significance in this one -- Google is reportedly phasing out Windows due to security concerns.

News of the plan broke as Google remains reeling from a major intrusion by Chinese hackers which occurred using an unprotected flaw in Internet Explorer 6.  Back in early February, Google announced that it would be dropping dedicated support for Internet Explorer 6, leaving a fifth of customers on the market behind.

Now, according to an extensive story in the 
Financial Times, it's carrying out a slow purge of Windows from its corporate IT infrastructure.  Describes an employee, "We’re not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort.  Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks."

Google employs over 10,000 people worldwide.  The company is reportedly now giving new hires an option of choosing between a Mac or a Linux box.  Most new employees at Google seem satisfied with this selection.  Comments one employee, "Linux is open source and we feel good about it.  Microsoft we don’t feel so good about."

And why use Apple, a traditionally closed system?  This may stem from the fact that Google and Apple long enjoyed an overly close relationship until the smartphone war transformed the pair to become rivals.  Describes one employee, "Particularly since the China scare, a lot of people here are using Macs for security."

Also, some Google employees apparently love their Macs.  Another employee chimed in, "It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows."

Macs and Linux systems tend to be attacked far less than Windows systems.  That's because the majority of malicious coders tend to target the biggest party -- Windows -- which holds approximately 90 percent of the market.  

Linux and Macs, while no more secure than Windows, in most cases don't have enough market share to justify coding malware for them -- thus most attacks on these platforms are essentially academic exercises.  Mac and Linux boxes are vulnerable to cross platform attacks in some cases, but the inability to install malware makes life more difficult for cybercriminals.

Apparently getting a Windows PC these days is almost as hard as getting in to Area 51 -- "Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval" claimed employees."

Google had previously made efforts to move employees voluntarily away from Windows towards Linux, the OS favored by Google.  States an employee, "Before the security, there was a directive by the company to try to run things on Google products.  [The Windows ban] was a long time coming."

Google is increasingly looking to develop its own operating systems.  It currently is dominating the smart phone market with its rapidly growing Android OS, which is based on Linux.  And later this year it hopes to unleash a netbook/tablet operating system called Chrome OS onto the world.  Chrome OS is a rather unique Linux distribution whose functionality is entirely browser based.  All the apps on the tablet are web-based and functions like printing are accomplished via web drivers.

Microsoft has yet to comment on the rejection.



Comments     Threshold


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

security through obscurity...
By zmatt on 6/1/2010 9:36:25 AM , Rating: 4
....is not security at all. Thanks for letting everyone know you use macs, they are so wide open and vulnerable it's laughable. If they think security was an issue with IE6 they will have a rude awakening next time china attacks them and they have macs. At least windows has decent security options. Apple's idea of fixing security holes is putting their hands over their ears and screaming la la la la at the top of their lungs.




RE: security through obscurity...
By FaceMaster on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: security through obscurity...
By damianrobertjones on 6/1/2010 9:46:49 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously...

There's one reason and one reason alone why Google has moved away from MS and that's business reasons. How can a company that that's trying to sell an OS use Windows as it's main OS?

Security reasons? Rubbish. If Google's techies are so rubbish as to let their systems be hacked then their engineers should be fired.

Marketing, all about the marketing.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Pirks on 6/1/2010 10:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Google's techies are so rubbish as to let their systems be hacked then their engineers should be fired
I too don't believe stories about IE6 running at Google HQ, they wouldn't let IE6 anywhere near their systems so they're lying for marketing purposes, have to agree with you.


RE: security through obscurity...
By sebmel on 6/2/2010 1:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that Microsoft security is much better than it was and many of the most egregious errors have been removed from its code (often in there because of the battle to kill Netscape - embedded browser in OS malarkey).

It is also true that Linux & the Mac OSes are far from invulnerable.

However, (here comes the inevitable metaphor) people in Switzerland are safer than those in Rio de Janeiro... yet all the houses in Rio have high walls around them and all the apartments have guards. Windows gets attacked more... that's an inconvenience for Windows users and Google claim to be avoiding that.

Regarding the article:

JM: "Google is one of the most creative and powerful tech companies in the world, thus its actions are scrutinized at times"

I'd like to suggest it be scrutinised a whole lot more. If you use Google search, Gmail, Chrome, Orkut, Panoramio, Buzz, Google talk, Google maps and have a Youtube account, or perhaps an Android phone, you have one hell of a dossier on you being accumulated by Google and then data mined... and you have no right to delete it.

If you sent an email to a Gmail user you have your email scanned without your permission. If you delete Gmail emails Google does not delete them from its backup, perhaps ever. Under US law, after 180 days your email is no longer even classified as a private correspondence... and the US has no privacy act.

Google users are allowing Google to know who their friends and family are, where they holiday & have a copy of their holiday snaps, where they eat and shop, what their interests are, who they write to, what they write, and who they phone... and Google states that it will keep this all in perpetuity and hand it over to the US authorities at the merest request.

J. Edgar Hoover would be really quite excited.

By the way, this info won't be much use to the FBI or Homeland Defence because crooks and terrorists are more private people than the trusting general public. They don't use Google... unless they are very, very stupid.

A little more questioning of Google would be in order, I think.

JM: "And why use Apple, a traditionally closed system?"

Not sure what you mean by that. Traditionally? Well, is it open or isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_sys...

The first line:
Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc.

So the proprietary Mac GUI sits above an open source fully compliant UNIX OS to which you have access via the terminal command line.

And Windows, Mick? The Windows that Google is stitching from... to the open source Linux and the open source Darwin sub-system of Mac OSX ...

Since you regularly write in favour of open standards and open source software other readers must be as perplexed as I about your tendency to try to infer that the very definitely proprietary Windows as somehow open... compared the the Apple Mac OSX... which you tend to infer is proprietary... when in large part it is open.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Dologan on 6/3/2010 6:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's not simply about open source, but about having an open /attitude/.

Ever tried installing non-Apple scrutinized software on your iPhone/iPad? Or OS X on non-Apple approved (yet still technically compatible) hardware?

You have to jump through a lot of (illegal) hoops to do that, and then risk your device being eventually bricked because, it appears, you don't even really own that device.

And now apparently, Apple now event wants to control what software and language developers can use to program for their iPhone platform. Very open of them.

Microsoft might not be the paragon of openness, but only a fool or a zealot could think Apple is remotely close or better. The Darwin OS (which hasn't been really been supported for years) is a very poor defense for that.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Finnkc on 6/1/2010 10:16:25 AM , Rating: 5
Google OS ... Built with MS Windows ...

yea not very good marketing.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Obujuwami on 6/1/2010 10:34:10 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, didn't MS patch it so that IE7 and 8 download through WSUS? I am sure a company as large as Google has it running on multiple servers and thus should be protected. Whats worse, Safari AND Chrome are both very susceptible to many more security risks than IE8 is.

Now, obvious M$ looking fan boying aside, I know the real reasons for the move:

1)M$ licensing: Its VERY expensive! VL keys are like $212 for Windows 7 Pro. Office is still way, WAY overpriced and other software like server and exchange sap your pocketbook when you look at the CALs you need to make sure everyone can use it.

Mac is much cheaper to run in house and Linux is free! That right there is a HUGE money saver.

2)Cloud competition: M$ has taken a very anti-Google stance lately. I recently went to a Office launch event and Google was a 4 letter word. Both companies are looking to capitalize on cloud computing (which, to be quite honest, scares the crap outa me) and neither of them really wants to help the other gain a foot hold there.

Cloud computing has its definite benefits, but I think both MS and Google are moving to it way too soon. This is why the companies are turning colder to each other and if you pay attention over the next 6 months (after N. Korea decides to attack S. Korea), you will see a larger cold-war type of conflict develop between Google and Microsoft.

That you can quote me on!


RE: security through obscurity...
By Pirks on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: security through obscurity...
By Treckin on 6/1/2010 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
How about Chinese weapons and Paki nukes? You sir are a moron. Even when the Chinese were not getting along with the USSR that well, they were still taking fat surplus weapons kickbacks.

I assure you, the NK's DO have weapons. What they dont have is FOOD.


RE: security through obscurity...
By theslug on 6/1/2010 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That you can quote me on!


No thanks. I'd prefer to get my information from sources that don't do childish things like abbreviate a company with dollar signs.


RE: security through obscurity...
By maverick85wd on 6/3/2010 4:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
other than using M$, I thought his comment was constructive and fitting. Your comment not only accomplishes nothing but negativity. Please think before you post!


By maverick85wd on 6/3/2010 4:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment accomplishes nothing but negativity.*

/edit

seriously DT, wiki-style editing PLEASE!!


RE: security through obscurity...
By jdsal on 6/2/2010 10:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the cloud computing fad or should I say 'software as a service'. The only reason we hear so much about this alleged technological breakthrough is solely because of the amount of marketing dollars being spent. I have extensive experience with various forms of SaaS and it always fails in the long run.

Commonly the failures I have encountered with SaaS is that the provider's support tails off quite rapidly. Generally the practice was to plant the best support engineers and then rotate them out with inexperienced and just plain sub-par employees. The next reason is that any deviance from the standard and narrow offering was immensely experience, which was generally in the order of FTE (full-time employee) annual salary. In the end the application/s total cost of ownership was not attractive enough to continue to keep it offsite.

That said, one benefit of cloud computing is to be able to rapidly construct TEMPORARY application environments for the purpose of piloting or demonstrating a concept. Thereafter it is always wise to bring it back inhouse where the staff in charge of support and development were at arms reach.


RE: security through obscurity...
By zmatt on 6/1/2010 9:50:04 AM , Rating: 3
Problem is, exploits are easily written for the mac, and knowing that Google is primarily powered by Macs makes it an easy target. Viri in the wild are uncommon for macs sure, but any organized group trying to take you down (like Chinese universities) will have no problem walking right in so to speak and taking what they want.


RE: security through obscurity...
By sefsefsefsef on 6/1/2010 1:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't think about this, but there is a market for anti-virus programs for Mac OS. Does everyone really think that Google would use thousands of Apple computers leaving them as vulnerable to attack as they are right out of the box? Google is not stupid.

If this move makes writing viruses for Mac OS more common, then it will simultaneously strengthen the Mac anti-virus market and improve the quality of anti-virus programs available for Mac OS. See: supply and demand.


RE: security through obscurity...
By ekv on 6/1/2010 5:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
In the meantime you, Google, your code repository and secrets are the laboratory / sand-box for PRC universities to test their viruses on. [Btw, how much of your code-base did they snag on the last exploit?]

Sure, you've come up with a better anti-virus product AFTER you figured out what hit you. Not good business sense for the sake of marketing tripe against MSFT.


RE: security through obscurity...
By sefsefsefsef on 6/1/2010 6:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this is how anti-virus software works. First someone creates a new virus, then anti-virus software is updated to protect against it. I'm glad you figured it out.

BTW, it also works that way for all anti-virus programs across all operating systems. What was your point?


RE: security through obscurity...
By ekv on 6/2/2010 2:41:04 AM , Rating: 2
What?

Why would you put your code repository up for grabs? again?


RE: security through obscurity...
By Alexstarfire on 6/1/2010 5:25:36 PM , Rating: 3
If they were truly using IE6 then yes, I do think they are that stupid.


RE: security through obscurity...
By JediJeb on 6/1/2010 5:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they were using IE6 on a limited number of boxes to test compatibility of their site and other products with IE6. If 20% of the online community is still using IE6 then Google is going to make sure their stuff works with it.


By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 3:09:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yes and they were dumb enough not to protect those boxes well.

Dump the box in the DMZ with pretty much nothing on it. Use a reverse proxy with some heavy authentication schemes to push these apps/websites/etc that they are working on to the IE6 box. If someone hacks the box, so what. They don't get anything.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Pirks on 6/1/2010 9:53:26 AM , Rating: 4
Don't you think they have overreacted and could have just replaced their XP/IE6 setups with Win7/Chrome/Opera/IE8 setups? Effect would be the same - elimination of those security threats but without losing access to Windows software and SDKs.


RE: security through obscurity...
By RjBass on 6/1/2010 10:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, if IE6 was to blame for their security hole, then why not just use Chrome with the IE Tab extension? It works great for me.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Pirks on 6/1/2010 10:32:56 AM , Rating: 3
Probably because Chrome with IE6 tab can still be exploited through the same IE6 security hole Chinese used to hack Google


RE: security through obscurity...
By 67STANG on 6/1/2010 12:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hard to believe:

1) Google has IE6 installed on any of their computers, as it's been a "dead" browser for like a year.
2) Google allows employees to use anything but Chrome on their computers.
3) Google wants to run anything from a competitor in their HQ, especially from a company that is reportedly collaborating with Apple to replace them as the default search on the iPhone.

It makes sense to me for Google to do this switch, provided the switch doesn't hamper employee productivity through the use of an unfamiliar OS.


RE: security through obscurity...
By JediJeb on 6/1/2010 5:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
The story about the hack with IE6 said they hit the IE6 boxes used for testing. Since 1/5 of the market still used IE6, Google is still going to be testing for compatibility with it. Where they messed up was not placing those boxes on restricted access to the web to protect them.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Alexstarfire on 6/1/2010 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
IDK about the IE tab from Chrome, but for Firefox it's not based on IE6.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Azure Sky on 6/2/2010 1:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
if only IE6 is installed yes it is, it uses triton(ie engine) to render the page, if ie7 or 8 are installed ietab uses that version of triton to render the page, if only ie6 is avalable, thats what gets used.

Google should have had better security AND should have dumped ie6 support years ago, I know I havent tested a website I have made in IE6 in at least 5-6 years, if people cant be bothered to update their IE or run another browser, then they probably arent the kind of people that I want to deal with in any fashion.


By omnicronx on 6/2/2010 1:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not that this is a valid excuse for Google, but there are many web based applications (especially in house business software) that still depend on IE6.

By the same account there are tons of web based applications that only support up to IE7 (use a few every day at work). These are not even legacy applications, they are new within the past few years..


By omnicronx on 6/1/2010 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 3
The attack against Google and other companies was apparently one of the most sephisticated attacks ever against the commercial industry.

The apparent attacks were also not limited to the IE exploit, it was only one of the many methods used.

This was a planned attack, most likely by those with a deep understanding of how to code said attacks and perhaps even an inside man.

This could/most likely will happen again, regardless of OS / Browser in use. They were targeted, plain and simple, it was not merely a common windows virus that breached their system.


RE: security through obscurity...
By jhb116 on 6/1/2010 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 4
Don't you see the problem with your argument based on this article? Is Google "nobody"???

Now that Google, a dominate Internet Giant, has Linux and Macs - there will be a movement to start building serious malware and viruses for Macs and Linux. Apple won't be able to handle this at first because they have always hidden under the "Windows is flawed" blanket...


RE: security through obscurity...
By alanore on 6/1/2010 10:30:47 AM , Rating: 1
AVG reckons that only 3% of Security issues are caused by 'traditional viruses' The human is still the weakest link in the chain.


By hiscross on 6/3/2010 3:01:29 PM , Rating: 1
"You microsoft fanboys seriously need to use your brains" Impossible. They didn't fitted with a brain.


RE: security through obscurity...
By omnicronx on 6/1/2010 11:16:01 AM , Rating: 3
I just don't understand the thought process here. Its not even security through obscurity when you are being targeted specifically like Google was. Whats to stop said hackers from switching their target platform? This is not a situation in which a virus is released on the web, in which the creator most likely would try and attack the most prevalent OS.

From a true security standpoint, this is a load of crock. Perhaps it may limit day to day viruses, but to make the claim it gives them protection against attacks such as the one from China is just giving a false sense of security.

This all leads me to believe this is nothing but propaganda/ a pr move on Googles part.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Motoman on 6/1/2010 11:30:15 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. This is pure marketing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I would be interested to see Google throw more of their weight behind Linux, this is just a PR stunt.


By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 4:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Although I do think this might show the Google Chrome OS is going to remain too lightweight for the near future to be a viable desktop OS.


RE: security through obscurity...
By KGBird on 6/1/2010 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are more than enough hackers in China (and around the world) to allow a greater focus on Apple products. At best, Google has bought themselves a bit of time, not much time though.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Tony Swash on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: security through obscurity...
By xpax on 6/1/2010 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, where have YOU been hiding recently? Plain sight with your head in the sand?

Every year the Apple products fall first at Pwn2Own. These are top-flight hackers who are motivated to get results. Once there is sufficient market share for Apple, their blackhat counterparts will no doubt hit the ground running -- and there is plenty of low-hanging fruit in OS X. Apple doesn't have a culture of security, because they haven't needed to yet. There are plenty of holes.

There have been several reports lately that rank Windows 7 as being more secure than OS X or Linux.

Don't let your Apple-love blind you to reality.


RE: security through obscurity...
By MojoMan on 6/1/2010 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Tony, please tell me you're not a computer engineer/tech spouting such nonsense. I AM a network engineer in charge of 900 computers, and over 2100 users. I've supported Linux, MacOS, and Windows. I've given them all a fair shot, and I can tell you don't seem to be experienced with this stuff. If you are, you've had better luck than I. The other OS's have their place, but they are much more of a disappointment to me than Windows XP or Windows 7. Apple OS is certainly NOT more secure when it comes to an attack. That is for sure.

Yes, security through obscurity. Run the numbers... Apple is a big tech company, but they STILL only hold 10% of the market. If you're a virus programmer, you're still going to attack Windows because of the larger share of Windows out there.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Tony Swash on 6/1/2010 6:09:49 PM , Rating: 1
OK - this is the way to test this in the real world. Set up a Windows 7 PC using the default settings out of the box, do the same for a Macintosh running Snow Leopard. Connect both PCs to the internet with 24 hour broadband. Do some normal, simple stuff on both systems, email, browse, search etc. Which system, in your opinion, would get hit first?


RE: security through obscurity...
By MojoMan on 6/1/2010 9:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I am amused... Should I mention my certs as well? I didn't even get into those certs I have (like Security+ among others).

Here... This should help answer your question:

http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/159273,snow...

Also this from another source (just Google Windows 7 vs Snow Leopard security - tons of stuff out there):

The difference Miller argues, according to TechWorld, is made by Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), a feature underdeveloped in Snow Leopard. “ASLR moves images into random locations when a system boots and thus makes it harder for shell code to operate successfully. For a component to support ASLR, all components that it loads must also support ASLR. For example, if A.EXE consumes B.DLL and C.DLL, all three must support ASLR. By default, Windows Vista will randomize system DLLs and EXEs, but DLLs and EXEs created by ISVs must opt in to support ASLR,” Microsoft reveals, and the same is valid not just for Vista, but also for Windows.

The security researcher indicated that Apple failed to introduce a fully fledged and fully functional, for that matter, ASLR in Snow Leopard. The largest problem related to ASLR according to Miller was the fact that Apple did nothing to improve the technology from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The latest versions of Mac OS X feature an ASLR that continues to ignore key components of the platform when it comes to randomization. Miller pointed out that the Snow Leopard ASLR fails to randomize the heap, the stack and the dynamic linker, delivering a wider attack surface than the ASLR in Windows Vista or in Windows 7.

Security through obscurity is not security. Ignoring security holes will only hurt Apple users in the end if their market keeps growing, and Apple keeps ignoring holes they could patch. So far, they've done a good job of ignoring those holes. It's laughable to the experts.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Taft12 on 6/2/2010 3:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am amused... Should I mention my certs as well? I didn't even get into those certs I have (like Security+ among others).


I thought you weren't going to get into your certs?


By karielash on 6/3/2010 2:32:19 AM , Rating: 2

Maybe we should all compare certs...


RE: security through obscurity...
By Motoman on 6/1/2010 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
Define obscure please.

Since Apple has 4% of the world personal computer market, I'd say that qualifies.

Stop being an Apple apologist and a Windowsphobe. You might like trying to live in the real world for once.


RE: security through obscurity...
By Tony Swash on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: security through obscurity...
By Donkeyshins on 6/2/2010 1:00:53 AM , Rating: 3
If you bother to break that down by Windows version, I'll bet you'll find the vast majority of those exploits happen on older (e.g. W2K, XP, etc.) versions of Windows. Running a 10-year-old operating system is not a great way to be highly secure...

And I bet someone has already done your challenge (e.g. Windows 7 default versus Snow Leopard) if you search for it.


By themaster08 on 6/2/2010 1:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
His cloak of ignorance has obviously phased out MotoMan's comments.


By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 3:20:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If I was confronted with a situation where 99.9% of car accidents due to malfunctions happened to Ford cars I would avoid Ford cars. Any other course of action would be ludicrous.


Might want to throw more out there. Like, there are 10 billion Ford cars out there and only 50,000 Chevy cars.

In 100% of accidents, they could have been avoided if those drivers were more knowledgeable of road conditions, vehicle conditions, proper vehicle maintenance, and so forth.

While the Chevy accidents were unavoidable, regardless if the driver was the best driver in the world.

Personally, I'd become more knowledgeable and drive a Ford.


By omnicronx on 6/2/2010 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Trying to convince the world (as opposed to the Techtards) that MacOSX is as insecure as Windows is the very definition of flogging a dead horse. That argument is over.
How about you leave the facts to those that know what they are talking about, you can 'argue' all you want, but public perception is the furthest thing from fact.

Otherwise the world is still flat, nobody ever landed on the moon and God will strike us all down for thinking dirty thoughts.

OSX by definition is obscure, not Apple, not the iPhone, but the OSX. It is not the prominent OS in the industry, plain and simple. It has been shown time and time again that OSX has flaws and is quite easy to exploit, but from the standpoint of how many users one can cover with a single code base gives little incentive for hackers/virus writers to target OSX.

Should their marketshare significantly shift, it is very likely that the focus of hackers/virus writers will shift with it.

For all intents and purposes I could make my own OS that only I use. I could leave every hole open that I could think of, but from a security standpoint, being the only one with that OS, what is the likely hood of these holes ever getting exploited?

This is called security through obscurity, it does not make my OS more secure, it just dramatically lowers the chance of being targeted.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 3:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes from a purely tech standpoint, this decision makes no sense. There is a real reason for this change lurking somewhere, but it's not the ones Google is claiming.


Over-react much?
By Ristogod on 6/1/2010 9:36:41 AM , Rating: 3
Wow Google. Way to over-react.

If ever there was a reason to switch away from Windows, it wouldn't be security.

They are moving from a heavily targeted very secure OS, to a less targeted, but also less secure OS.

Apple doesn't even take security serious. They spout time and again that they are more secure, without actually performing any measures to insure it. They continue to rely on the fact that the OS simply isn't a major target for malicious attacks.

I don't know what to think of Google these days. Some of their stuff is great. But somethings they do just don't make a lot of sense.




RE: Over-react much?
By Wolfgangap on 6/1/2010 9:48:45 AM , Rating: 5
I like how Google is blaming security as the reason to switch. They are really just trying to bring attention to themselves and harm Microsoft.

Their recent headline grabbing attack was because they were running an unpatched system. It was XP with IE 6. They should have at least been running XP with IE 8 and ideally Vista 64bit (now 7) with IE 8.

I guess they assume they will never need to patch with Linux/OS X? No, they know they will need to patch and instead of admitting they failed to have good patch policy in place, they are blaming Windows.


RE: Over-react much?
By AssBall on 6/1/2010 10:02:39 AM , Rating: 3
That's kinda what I was thinking, Wolf. The security on any OS google uses is only as good as their IT dept. This begs the question, what the hell were they doing with an insecurely set up IE6 machine open to their network? They were either lazy, stupid, or asking for it with that one.


RE: Over-react much?
By afkrotch on 6/2/2010 3:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
Testing new products they are designing. IE6 still have a big margin of browser use out there.

Their problem is not properly securing that machine. If they want to use it as a testbed, toss it out into the DMZ with a reverse proxy (with some heavy authentication scheme) to push their prototype products to it.

That way, if someone hacks the box, they don't go very far.


RE: Over-react much?
By taber on 6/1/2010 11:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I imagine they have other reasons also weighing heavily in this decision.

Google has always been heavily leveraged on Linux anyway, that's what their search engine runs on. I'm guessing they (media) are making this into bigger news than it is. Google would rather a computer be nothing but a web browser(Chrome OS), since that's where all their profit comes from. Since they're not too concerned with developing much software for a specific platform, it's not a big deal what platform they use to develop web technologies on.


Linux isn't flawless...
By MrBlastman on 6/1/2010 9:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
Either. I know, I've used it for years (mid 90's). Any good General or military strategist will tell you that defense will inevitably lead to defeat. A good offense will always eventually overcome it given unlimited resources and time.

This holds true for computer security as well. Given time and resources, any defensive, protective technology will be overcome. Shuffling the blame onto Microsoft's plate and moving to Linux or Mac OS will _not_ save Google.

It won't. It just shuffles the blame and responsibility to another operating system which will inevitably fail them. Mac OS arguably sooner than Linux given how Linux has operated in a server environment in larger numbers for a longer time.

I really don't see the merit in this decision other than a way for Google to stick to Microsoft in terms of licensing and revenues. I've been wondering for a while though when a major company will go for another OS.

IF Google really cared about security, they might have chosen Open BSD or something similar. Linux is dandy but it isn't free from worms and virii. I've seen a few propagating worms on Linux.




RE: Linux isn't flawless...
By stmok on 6/2/2010 12:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any good General or military strategist will tell you that defense will inevitably lead to defeat. A good offense will always eventually overcome it given unlimited resources and time.


Computer security isn't like war. No one actually dies; just annoyed and frustrated where productivity/work is lost.

Then again, if you rely on AV software; you are already on the defensive. (That's the fundamental flaw with the approach. It places the end-user on the defensive from the start.)

You can analyze, modify, and harden a Linux setup at a source code level. That's just one of the fundamental benefits of its existence.

Where as with Windows and Mac, you are dependent on Microsoft and Apple respectively...I don't know what they've done or didn't do in terms of design and implementation at a code level. They depend on marketing and security infomercials...

=> "Doesn't get PC viruses."
(Part of Apple's current "Why you'll love Mac" campaign.)

=> "Windows Vista is the most secure Operating System ever!"
(Chief Security Advisor for Microsoft Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA); Roger Halbheer, 2007)

Marketing, popularity, etc have nothing to do with secure software design. That has everything to do with running a business and selling your products.

quote:
This holds true for computer security as well. Given time and resources, any defensive, protective technology will be overcome. Shuffling the blame onto Microsoft's plate and moving to Linux or Mac OS will _not_ save Google.


You don't use protective technology to cover issues of poorly implemented or designed software. That would be no different to treating the symptoms and not bothering about the root cause of problems.

Prevention is better than cure. You create/use/modify technology that prevents problems from the start.

High integrity/security software is based on fault-tolerant design, programming language selection/experience, and good project management that are well versed in security engineering and implementation.

When you write software that isn't allowed to do anything else than its specific purpose; you don't get issues, and you don't need the endless number of third-party security software to "protect" the system.

The most ironic thing about "protection technologies" like AV software is that they are ineffective against real attacks. (It turns out that it isn't all that hard to disable or workaround such technologies.)

quote:
I really don't see the merit in this decision other than a way for Google to stick to Microsoft in terms of licensing and revenues. I've been wondering for a while though when a major company will go for another OS.


Google was built on open source technologies like Linux. So its no surprise Linux is an option as it actually runs on it.

I can see why Mac is the other option. Some of OSX's development tools are the same as on Linux.

quote:
IF Google really cared about security, they might have chosen Open BSD or something similar. Linux is dandy but it isn't free from worms and virii. I've seen a few propagating worms on Linux.


OpenBSD is promoted as secure in its default configuration . It makes an excellent basis for a security gateway or server.

The very moment you install a GUI (X server) and any other bits needed for typical Desktop uses; you start opening up potential avenues of compromise.

And if you have actually talked to people who are well versed in security system and design of today's OSs for end-users; you'll see the most common issues are the web browser and third-party extensions like Flash, Java, etc...

...Combine that with a touch of social engineering trickery to get people executing malware crafted code.


RE: Linux isn't flawless...
By karielash on 6/2/2010 3:53:35 AM , Rating: 2

Nice post, I'd rate you up, but I used up all my votes :(.


RE: Linux isn't flawless...
By Taft12 on 6/2/2010 4:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Computer security isn't like war. No one actually dies; just annoyed and frustrated where productivity/work is lost.


The war analogy isn't really appropriate, but there is a hell of a lot more on the line than annoyance and frustration! Do you think the Chinese hackers who compromised the email accounts of human rights advocates believe that? How about $billions worth of proprietary data?


I'm stumped
By gralex on 6/1/2010 9:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get it... honestly!

I get that the IE6/China debacle is more of an excuse rather than a real reason... But do you really want your 10,000 employees not having daily contact with a product used by 90% of the market?




RE: I'm stumped
By damianrobertjones on 6/1/2010 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 1
Excatly.

This move by Google is more to do with Marketing than Security.

Jason, your headline really does suck in a big way.


RE: I'm stumped
By PAPutzback on 6/1/2010 9:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not when you are trying to replace said product. I am just surprised they let AMC stay also. It won't be long before they will want everyone running their own Chrome OS. IT is the only way to get good feedback and out of the box thinking to improve it.


RE: I'm stumped
By leuNam on 6/1/2010 11:53:26 AM , Rating: 1
to be honest with you guys.... Google backward-engineered windows OS....hehehe to make sure they don't get sued with Chrome OS...hehehehe but amidst it all, Google is still my hero...wohooo!!


I love Mac OS X
By NanoTube1 on 6/1/2010 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sue me.




RE: I love Mac OS X
By jdsal on 6/1/2010 8:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to, but you've cleaned out your bank account to buy Apple products.


RE: I love Mac OS X
By NanoTube1 on 6/2/2010 6:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
True. That's why I use Mac OS X on a hackintosh! :D
But I have an iPhone as well and I must say that it is an excellent device that didn't "clear" my bank account at all.


time saver
By grcunning on 6/1/2010 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 1
I bet Google did this so that their employees wont have to spend half the day clogging up their Windows machines with bloated, shitty trialware just to get something done that is included by default in Linux. Just one example of a thousand, try converting from a wmv to an mpeg. for me it is as simple as:
ffmpeg -i sample.wmv sample.mpeg
Try that on a Windows box without installing some trialware. Nearly everything you want to do in Windows requires you to bloat your system up again and again. Its maddening for someone who has to clean this crap up when the 14 day trial expires and there are 30 programs like this on every Windows box I fix.
I was a Windows fanboy from Windows 2 to XP until I started using Debian.(not just installing it and giving up, but actually spending some time learning it). Its like going from a school bus to a ferrari.
It's not like Windows doesn't have great things going for it, it does. For people like those on DT, Toms, Anand, etc., Windows works great. Its just that its soooo easy for the average person to completely screw up the OS. When I clean up a client's Windows machine for them, I can pretty much guarantee that they will be calling back within a month or two. If I install Ubuntu or OpenSuse for them, I won't hear from them for a year.
I do have a Windows partition which I use for the only three reasons I can think of for using Windows: games, CS4, and Visual Studio. I cant think of anything else that Windows can do that my machine can't, and a thousand things that my Linux box can do that Windows can't without spending thousands on extra software. (I'm just talking about desktop use, I actually like Windows Server.)
Most Windows guys I know talk a lot of trash, but they are actually pretty clueless and afraid of learning anything new. Sometimes they say they have used Linux, but actually they installed it, and realized that they might have to actually type in a command, something super complicated like:
"sudo apt-get install netbeans"
and they say, Oh God, thats too complicated, Linux sucks!
If I never had to change a key in the horrible mess that is the Windows registry again, I would be very happy.




RE: time saver
By 2bdetermine on 6/1/2010 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Your view are so narrow-minded. If Windows can do everything and anything, Yahoo, Google, Adobe System just to name a few wouldn't even exists.


RE: time saver
By captainBOB on 6/2/2010 9:32:12 AM , Rating: 1
Taking one sentence from a TL;DR post and using it out of context DOES NOT qualify as good argument.

Also, Engrish is highly frowned upon in comment flame wars.


Now we've got a reason...
By nafhan on 6/1/2010 9:43:16 AM , Rating: 3
Get to work exploiting those Mac security flaws people!




disappointing
By cyberwiz63 on 6/1/2010 9:51:11 AM , Rating: 3
i will never apply to work for google as I dont like mac os or linux.




Hmm...
By iceonfire1 on 6/1/2010 10:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
Security can't be the only concern; it looks as though Google has been looking for an excuse that sounds slightly legitimate. According to the news articles I read, the attacks were specifically targeted, probably by elements within or related to the Chinese government.

I'm pretty sure they could fund advanced hacking into Macs or Linux at least as easily as into Windows systems.




By immortalsly on 6/1/2010 12:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Google's rationale is so unbelievable that I think they're just *saying* they're switching to throw people off. Imagine all the hackers out there now writing malware for Mac and Linux and Google is sitting pretty because they've regressed all their users back to IE 3.0! Genius!




In Other News....
By Murst on 6/1/2010 12:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ford stops buying GM cars due to safety concerns.




Laughable Logic
By 2bdetermine on 6/1/2010 2:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
So I guessed Google Chrome 5 is the last version ever release for Windows.




By LifeByTheHorns on 6/1/2010 3:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
This is probably a much smaller change that most people would believe. I saw their developer facilities about 18 months ago and most devs that I saw were already using Mac OS and/or Linux.




hippies
By perspicacity on 6/1/2010 11:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest surprise to me is that Google would use OS/X. Since they like to give all their software away for free... I already pictured the Google-types more in the open source, Linux world, anyway.




Good riddance
By fteoath64 on 6/2/2010 1:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
ABout time!. And is a great move to set an example to large Corporate out there who spent $$$ every year supporting an aging OS.
Linux is a great choice and has matured more so than any commercial OS including OSX.

Great move!.




Security ^_^
By Setsunayaki on 6/2/2010 3:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
I remember trying an experiment on a Windows Machine vs a Linux Machine using Wine.

I remember playing an old game called DeusEx, which had a multiplayer as well. I had Chmod my DeusEx Cache directory and system directory to 555 on both boxes. This made it so no writes were possible under any level to those directories, but execution and reads were allowed.

What I did was simply logged in and connected to a server. Usually when connecting to a server in an online game, a filecheck or packagecheck occurs. Any missing packages/files needed get downloaded automatically.

On the Windows Box, the files were written to the cache directory...possibly because of how network permissions worked. I was annoyed, so I tried it in other games...and found the same problem.

I remember then on my Linux Box, I had Ramdisked the game and ran it through Wine...with the same permissions.

When I went to a server with files intentionally missing, I received an Error Message:

"Warning: Cannot write to file"

and of course I could not enter the server.

From a gaming standpoint, a gamer may attack the linux system, but from someone who focuses a lot on security...its a strong win for Linux and why Linux is the OS of choice when hosting practically anything and doing most programming work on too...

Linux honored the permissions I set
Windows did not honor the permissions I set and I remember being told at the time a different set of permissions existed for hidden files and Networking as well, which annoyed the hell out of me.

After dealing with that, I remember that I made a choice...

I would use Linux for all my non-gaming needs and windows for my gaming needs that involved Current High-Resolution Gaming + capturing video with Fraps and encoding it with another program. In that way Windows has its usefulness.

I am happy Google has made the move to get rid of Windows and decided to upgrade to a much more serious OS. ^_^




Dumping Windows is easy...
By eegake on 6/2/2010 7:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
...and fun. Several years have passed since we eliminated all but a couple of software testing PCs with Windows. One fun aspect of this is seeing the inability of so many people to imagine a world free of this third rate operating system. I guess being trapped by fear and superstition is a comfortable place for some folks.




MAC secure.....ROFL
By Azure Sky on 6/2/2010 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
sorry but a quick google can show you there are more unfixed security holes in OSX and safari then there are in Windows Vista/7 (and even xp) I am going to LULZ when google gets pwnt by hackers AGAIN this time due to holes in OSX and Linux.

Oh and in my experiance mac AV apps SUCK, I have tried to use them to clean off PC hdd's that where infected with nasty stuff, they NEVER found as much as the windows AV's did, and most times they couldnt fully remove the viruses anyway......

I will stick with my windows 7, at least its default browser runs in protected mode keeping this kind of attack from effecting anything but IE.

Mind I dont use IE unless I have to, Im quite happy with Opera's latist beta/labs builds to be honest ;)




Google OS
By 2bdetermine on 6/3/2010 1:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Applications for Windows will work on Chrome

quote:
Google to Dump Windows Internally Due to Security Concerns


So I guessed malicious code had no problem running on Google OS.




By JohnFx on 6/15/2010 7:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Forgetting for a moment that MS is likely Google's most powerful rival and is not without significant potential upside for negative PR associated with Microsoft...

Is Google seriously implying that they are ditching Windows because of security concerns because they were up until recently still running unpatched versions of 10+ year old browser software?

Obviously this is a good case to ditch IE6, but blaming the OS for an exploit on an ancient version of a different piece of software that was characterized by McAfee thusly:

"In this case the flaw wasn't overly severe, but the attackers were unusually sophisticated and struck out at businesses, looking to steal their data. We have never seen attacks of this sophistication in the commercial space. We have previously only seen them in the government space."

It sounds like there is a security problem at Google, but I don't know how dissonance it takes to blame it on MS and outright ban their OS ostensibly on the grounds of this hack alone.




By JohnFx on 6/15/2010 7:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
Forgetting for a moment that MS is likely Google's most powerful rival and is not without significant potential upside for negative PR associated with Microsoft...

Is Google seriously implying that they are ditching Windows because of security concerns because they were up until recently still running unpatched versions of 10+ year old browser software?

Obviously this is a good case to ditch IE6, but blaming the OS for an exploit on an ancient version of a different piece of software that was characterized by McAfee thusly:

"In this case the flaw wasn't overly severe, but the attackers were unusually sophisticated and struck out at businesses, looking to steal their data. We have never seen attacks of this sophistication in the commercial space. We have previously only seen them in the government space."

It sounds like there is a security problem at Google, but I don't know how much dissonance it takes for Google to blame it on MS and outright ban their OS ostensibly on the grounds of this hack alone.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














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