10 ms·

Google has the resources to secure their systems, the ability to defend against nation state attacks, and billions in revenue at risk for losing that trust. I k

by dahdum 10y ago

Google has the resources to secure their systems, the ability to defend against nation state attacks, and billions in revenue at risk for losing that trust. I know of no one that offers the same experience with anything close to the same protection, do you?

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"he ability to defend against nation state attacks" I'm skeptical about that. They got seriously owned by one in the past with their proposed solution switching to Mac's and Linux distros. I don't recall if they acted on that but the fact that they thought it would stop nation-states says something. They certainly have more resources to stop, detect, or recover from black hats than the average user of their service.
- solipsism 10y ago
  They got seriously owned by one in the past with their proposed solution switching to Mac's and Linux distros Where are you getting your false news? You can't think Google's response to a nation state attack was to only switch to Macs and Linux. Care to share what you're referring to?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    It was in multiple sources like NYT and Business Insider that they initially blamed Microsoft with a switch planned. Looking it up again, Wired reports they didn't go that far: just gave employees options with extra information informing them about the pro's and con's of them. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-and-windows/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-and-windows/ Of course, this is almost equivalent to original claim given they think switching between operating systems will mean much against nation states with China levels of labor. Especially if it's an Ubuntu derivative. It takes a lot of different elements to deal with them which include strong protections on an endpoint designed with that in mind. Lots of configuration checking and monitoring too.
    - puzzle 10y ago
      Why do you talk about things you obviously know very little about and present them as the entire story? Reducing, not eliminating, the Windows footprint was just one of many, many initiatives. U2F security keys are one of the well known ones outside the company. Or hardening ChromeOS.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Even if you're going to disagree, please don't frame it as a personal attack. That's not how we do things here.
        solipsism 10y ago
        He's continually bashing Google with misleading comments. It deserves to be called out.
        grzm 10y ago
        'nickpsecurity consistently contributes thoughtful, considered comments. If you have disagreements, please present them in kind.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Appreciate it. I was having too much fun offline to fully debate last night but posted a detailed reply upthread this morning if you're interested.
      - packetslave 10y ago
        also, it was 7+ years ago (Aurora happened in 2009)
        puzzle 10y ago
        Yeah. And it's finally OK to mention the custom security chips or even LOAS (which already existed in some form before Aurora), because Niels Provos brought it up on stage: https://twitter.com/jbeda/status/715373975182807040?lang=en https://twitter.com/jbeda/status/715373975182807040?lang=en
tensor 10y ago
This very topic is about the fact that apparently Google doesn't have the ability to defend against nation state attacks. If you are not American, the US government being able to seize your data is very much a nation state attack.
fictioncircle 10y ago
A warrant is a form of nation state attack from a security perspective. They have also previously used DKIM keys in a way that makes them close to worthless. The NSA had some exploit strategy in place according to Snowden. Etc. Sometimes being in the big pot is less safe than being in the small pot that is 95% as secure if only because the effort for breaching 95% vs. 100% is minor if you get 50x as much information.

by dahdum 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"he ability to defend against nation state attacks" I'm skeptical about that. They got seriously owned by one in the past with their proposed solution switching to Mac's and Linux distros. I don't recall if they acted on that but the fact that they thought it would stop nation-states says something. They certainly have more resources to stop, detect, or recover from black hats than the average user of their service.

solipsism 10y ago
They got seriously owned by one in the past with their proposed solution switching to Mac's and Linux distros Where are you getting your false news? You can't think Google's response to a nation state attack was to only switch to Macs and Linux. Care to share what you're referring to?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  It was in multiple sources like NYT and Business Insider that they initially blamed Microsoft with a switch planned. Looking it up again, Wired reports they didn't go that far: just gave employees options with extra information informing them about the pro's and con's of them. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-and-windows/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-and-windows/ Of course, this is almost equivalent to original claim given they think switching between operating systems will mean much against nation states with China levels of labor. Especially if it's an Ubuntu derivative. It takes a lot of different elements to deal with them which include strong protections on an endpoint designed with that in mind. Lots of configuration checking and monitoring too.
  - puzzle 10y ago
    Why do you talk about things you obviously know very little about and present them as the entire story? Reducing, not eliminating, the Windows footprint was just one of many, many initiatives. U2F security keys are one of the well known ones outside the company. Or hardening ChromeOS.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Even if you're going to disagree, please don't frame it as a personal attack. That's not how we do things here.
      - solipsism 10y ago
        He's continually bashing Google with misleading comments. It deserves to be called out.
        grzm 10y ago
        'nickpsecurity consistently contributes thoughtful, considered comments. If you have disagreements, please present them in kind.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Appreciate it. I was having too much fun offline to fully debate last night but posted a detailed reply upthread this morning if you're interested.
    - packetslave 10y ago
      also, it was 7+ years ago (Aurora happened in 2009)
      - puzzle 10y ago
        Yeah. And it's finally OK to mention the custom security chips or even LOAS (which already existed in some form before Aurora), because Niels Provos brought it up on stage: https://twitter.com/jbeda/status/715373975182807040?lang=en https://twitter.com/jbeda/status/715373975182807040?lang=en

tensor 10y ago

This very topic is about the fact that apparently Google doesn't have the ability to defend against nation state attacks. If you are not American, the US government being able to seize your data is very much a nation state attack.

fictioncircle 10y ago

A warrant is a form of nation state attack from a security perspective. They have also previously used DKIM keys in a way that makes them close to worthless. The NSA had some exploit strategy in place according to Snowden. Etc. Sometimes being in the big pot is less safe than being in the small pot that is 95% as secure if only because the effort for breaching 95% vs. 100% is minor if you get 50x as much information.