4 ms·

> Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Or compulsion by any government to which Google is responsible (e

by zeveb 10y ago

> Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Or compulsion by any government to which Google is responsible (e.g. Russia, if I Googled correctly). Or a suitably clever Googler (as you note, it may be difficult, but 'difficult' ≠ 'cryptographically secure'). As when Facebook didn't think HTTPS made sense until someone sniffed Zuckerberg's password in a coffee shop, I don't think Google (or any other cloud firm) will take security seriously (as opposed to paying lip service to it for marketing purposes) until someone in the C-suite is materially embarrassed by its lack.

idlewords 10y ago
"Russia, if I Googled correctly." You clearly trust Google to some extent, since you search with it. I don't think you can accuse Google of not taking security seriously. They are making a security tradeoff that allows governments and insiders access to private data. This is a legitimate tradeoff to make, and a legitimate thing to criticize them for. Apple makes a different choice, and it's important that we have a debate around which is the right security design. But making a claim that Google is not serious about security does a disservice to the really good people there who move mountains to secure the service.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > I don't think you can accuse Google of not taking security seriously. I don't think they take my security, and the security of my data, seriously. They seem to care very much about their security. > They are making a security tradeoff that allows governments and insiders access to private data. This is a legitimate tradeoff to make No, at this point I don't believe that it is legitimate, any more than it's legitimate to sell an oven which will explode if the temperature dial is set above 600° ('just don't set it that high!'). Yes, there are people at Google who work very hard to secure Google's data; there are people at Google (e.g. Adam Langley) who care a lot about users' data. There may even be people at Google who are working very hard to change its course on user privacy. But Google, the company, does not take the security of user data against privacy threats seriously: if it did, it would use a better architecture (note that Apple doesn't take user-data security seriously, either, since they can MITM any time they want; nor does Mozilla, nor does Microsoft: no organization's hands are clean, so far as I can tell).
  - idlewords 10y ago
    Google's business is based on destroying what you and I consider to be privacy, so I don't see how you could expect them to change their minds about that. Google and similar companies have a coherent worldview in which they collect user data, protect it from outsiders and inside threats, and do benign and wonderful things for users in return. Within that worldview, they do an excellent and commendable job. Calling their beliefs on data collection a security issue muddies the debate. I'm curious about your comments on Apple. If I back up my phone to iCloud, how can Apple "MITM any time they want"?
    - zeveb 10y ago
      > I'm curious about your comments on Apple. If I back up my phone to iCloud, how can Apple "MITM any time they want"? I was referring to iMessage: my understanding is that it Apple is the CA for all iMessage keys, and thus they can issue a certificate to anyone, if they wish to or are compelled to.
      - giovannibajo1 10y ago
        Theoretically, just like they could prepare a broken version of iOS that disables security and push it to targeted users. In reality, such a software/infrastructure does not exist today, and we've been shown what happens when Apple is asked to write it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Exactly how does almost singlehandedly transitioning the global Internet to forward-secure curve-based TLS help their security and not yours? All I can see in that work is cost for them.
    - kryptiskt 10y ago
      That's easy, TLS is great for Google as ISPs and wifi providers can't replace ads with their own in transit.
puzzle 10y ago
A "suitably clever Googler", an insider threat, is something that Google actively defends against, at multiple levels. The general assumption is that you can't blindly trust internal users, devices, etc. See the BeyondCorp paper for an example. The internal security infrastructure (monitoring, logging, auditing, analysis) probably consumes more CPU cycles than what's needed to run a large number of entire business out there, especially after the China incident -- remember who alerted the 30+ companies that got infiltrated. The security whitepaper gives only a hint of what's done, such as checks on former employees' accounts and so on: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/1.9.22.221/en//enterprise/pdf/whygoogle/google-common-security-whitepaper.pdf https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/1.9.22.221/en//en...

by zeveb 10y ago

idlewords 10y ago

"Russia, if I Googled correctly." You clearly trust Google to some extent, since you search with it. I don't think you can accuse Google of not taking security seriously. They are making a security tradeoff that allows governments and insiders access to private data. This is a legitimate tradeoff to make, and a legitimate thing to criticize them for. Apple makes a different choice, and it's important that we have a debate around which is the right security design. But making a claim that Google is not serious about security does a disservice to the really good people there who move mountains to secure the service.

zeveb 10y ago
> I don't think you can accuse Google of not taking security seriously. I don't think they take my security, and the security of my data, seriously. They seem to care very much about their security. > They are making a security tradeoff that allows governments and insiders access to private data. This is a legitimate tradeoff to make No, at this point I don't believe that it is legitimate, any more than it's legitimate to sell an oven which will explode if the temperature dial is set above 600° ('just don't set it that high!'). Yes, there are people at Google who work very hard to secure Google's data; there are people at Google (e.g. Adam Langley) who care a lot about users' data. There may even be people at Google who are working very hard to change its course on user privacy. But Google, the company, does not take the security of user data against privacy threats seriously: if it did, it would use a better architecture (note that Apple doesn't take user-data security seriously, either, since they can MITM any time they want; nor does Mozilla, nor does Microsoft: no organization's hands are clean, so far as I can tell).
- idlewords 10y ago
  Google's business is based on destroying what you and I consider to be privacy, so I don't see how you could expect them to change their minds about that. Google and similar companies have a coherent worldview in which they collect user data, protect it from outsiders and inside threats, and do benign and wonderful things for users in return. Within that worldview, they do an excellent and commendable job. Calling their beliefs on data collection a security issue muddies the debate. I'm curious about your comments on Apple. If I back up my phone to iCloud, how can Apple "MITM any time they want"?
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > I'm curious about your comments on Apple. If I back up my phone to iCloud, how can Apple "MITM any time they want"? I was referring to iMessage: my understanding is that it Apple is the CA for all iMessage keys, and thus they can issue a certificate to anyone, if they wish to or are compelled to.
    - giovannibajo1 10y ago
      Theoretically, just like they could prepare a broken version of iOS that disables security and push it to targeted users. In reality, such a software/infrastructure does not exist today, and we've been shown what happens when Apple is asked to write it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Exactly how does almost singlehandedly transitioning the global Internet to forward-secure curve-based TLS help their security and not yours? All I can see in that work is cost for them.
  - kryptiskt 10y ago
    That's easy, TLS is great for Google as ISPs and wifi providers can't replace ads with their own in transit.

puzzle 10y ago

A "suitably clever Googler", an insider threat, is something that Google actively defends against, at multiple levels. The general assumption is that you can't blindly trust internal users, devices, etc. See the BeyondCorp paper for an example. The internal security infrastructure (monitoring, logging, auditing, analysis) probably consumes more CPU cycles than what's needed to run a large number of entire business out there, especially after the China incident -- remember who alerted the 30+ companies that got infiltrated. The security whitepaper gives only a hint of what's done, such as checks on former employees' accounts and so on: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/1.9.22.221/en//enterprise/pdf/whygoogle/google-common-security-whitepaper.pdf https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/1.9.22.221/en//en...