10 ms·
Google ditches Windows on security concerns
- Zak 16y agoI'm a bit surprised that there was significant internal use of Windows at Google. I had the impression that most PCs there ran Linux.
- ghurlman 16y agoSomething tells me that the senior staff at Google was also surprised, and somebody's making this move (or was told to make this move) to save their job.
- brown9-2 16y agoLet's not ignore non-technical employees.
- jonknee 16y agoWell they did introduce their browser as Windows only at first... They have a lot of non-technical people who probably opt to use at whatever they used before (Windows).
- viraptor 16y ago> which employs more than 10,000 workers internationally I thought the number was higher. Wikipedia says 20,621 (2010)... still thought it was higher.
- Raphael 16y ago20621 is greater than 10000.
- melling 16y agoLots of new Mac and Linux users. Hopefully, some of the people will be dedicating some of their 20% time to improving the Mac and Linux platforms.
- blantonl 16y agoI can assure you that the only users at Google that are affected by this decision are sales and marketing.
- sp332 16y agoGood, Linux could use some sales & marketing help.
- sgk284 16y agoEngineering at Google is already 100% linux or OS X (at least when I was there in 2007), unless you were writing a client application targeting windows. This decision is about sales, marketing, HR, etc...
- jws 16y agoIf it just inspires them to rein in the zoom rate on Google Maps I'll be happy.
- redstripe 16y agoThe big hack was apparently based on a zero day IE flaw. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/hack-of-adob http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/hack-of-adob Wouldn't it be easier to make their employees use chrome?
- desigooner 16y agoI'd have assumed that Google Chrome or Firefox would have been default browsers at Google considering their involvement.
- desigooner 16y agoalso, the infected URL was sent through MSN Messenger and upon being clicked, it launched the infected page. That would mean, correct me if I'm wrong, that the default browser was still IE. Also, are IT policies applied consistently throughout the world or different regions have a diff. IT policy?
- thought_alarm 16y agoSure, but there's only one way to completely uninstall IE and it sounds like that's exactly what they're doing.
- stcredzero 16y agoThis isn't true. Off the top of my head, Google could replace the executables (incl. DLLs) with ones that do nothing but throw up a "disabled" sign. (Which would also take care of OLE/ActiveX embedding of IE in other apps.) I see below that there are better ways of doing this from more Windows savvy folks.
- solidus 16y agoMuch easier. They could for example setup Active Directory policies to disable the use of IE by default.
- desigooner 16y agoso what happens when an exploit other than IE is used in the future when something goes down at Google? Seems like a decision taken in haste and more of a knee-jerk reaction.
- moe 16y agoThat's why they're ditching not IE but windows altogether. Doesn't seem knee-jerk to me when you look at the security track record of the various platforms.
- desigooner 16y agoIt's simple economics as far as the malware/security track record goes. Since windows holds the most marketshare in OS business, most of the effort in terms of malware or virus creation is directed towards windows systems. It's been shown at Pwn2Own that Macs can be easier to break into vs. Windows esp. Vista onwards. If you were a hacker and you wanted that data, it wouldn't have stopped you if the target used Mac OSX ... you could just target some other unpublicized exploit. I mean all you need is Flash to do some damage.
- Niten 16y agoYes, it does. Recent versions of Windows (Vista and especially 7) have had security track records at least on par with OS X and desktop Linux. Mac OS X hasn't been doing terribly well lately, and Apple is notoriously slow to patch known security flaws, e.g.: http://bit.ly/62bTNQ http://bit.ly/62bTNQ I'd provide a link to hard data, but for some reason Secunia's taken down their list of unpatched vulnerabilities in OS X (?!), even though they provide this data for most other operating systems, including Windows.
- moe 16y agoSorry, but that simply doesn't matter. Case in point, OSX even had more security advisories published than windows for a while, yet the "experts" still mostly agree OSX is the safer platform; http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html?tag=rtcol;pop http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html?tag=rtco... There's a very simple reason: OSX has around 6% market share, Windows around 80%. Go figure which platform the kids are going to target for the time being. Also feel free to research on which platform the major, semi-automated botnets (Storm, Zeus) are running.
- megaman821 16y agoIs there any evidence that Windows 7 is less secured than Snow Leopard? Windows employs more advanced security techniques. IE has outlasted Safari in Pwn2Own since IE8. Windows releases security fixes much faster. If they favor OS X over Windows that is completely fine, but I think they are implying something that isn't true in regards to security. If someone exploits OS X on them, is everyone moving to Linux next?
- memoryfault 16y agoAnd what happens when someone exploits Linux?
- melling 16y agoYou have a nice ecosystem of Unix OS's. Solaris, OpenBSD, NetBSD, ... and a handful of major Linux distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Gentoo, Debian, etc. Once you've gone Unix you have lots of choices, including the Mac. Did Google roll their own Linux? Which kernel do you target? which apps?
- doty 16y agoIt seems reasonable to assume that they'd standardize on a distribution, and centrally manage patching client machines. I cannot imagine that they would expect every employee to concern themselves with such things.
- Perceval 16y agoGoogle reportedly has a modified version of LTS Ubuntu used internally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu
- melling 16y agoMarket share: Windows 90%, Mac 9%, Linux 1%. Where are virus writers going to put most of their effort? Windows being as secure as Mac wouldn't help make it safer because a lot more implemented exploits are going to exist in the wild.
- xpaulbettsx 16y ago"Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks" Wait, so they're phasing out Windows for security reasons, and moving to Mac instead? It at least made sense when they were moving to Linux or ChromeOS, but OS X's security track record as of late is far worse than Windows.
- johnl 16y agoI would agree. Windows has the largest population of non-computer literate people worldwide so hackers get the bigest bang for their buck and windows gets a bad rap. If everyone jumps to another OS so will the security problems.
- maukdaddy 16y ago?! Are you missing the part where OS X is based on BSD?
- ori_b 16y agoThat's a myth. There are some parts like libc and the command line apps that were ported from BSD, the the kernel is a mach-that-isn't-anymore hybrid oddity, and the user interface is an Apple-only system. So, to a good approximation, you can say that the command line is based on BSD, and the rest came from NeXT and Apple, with a bit of GNU mixed in. The BSD heritage is rather insignificant when it comes to security, since the largest attack surface comes from Apple applications like Safari, or the file manager, or other apps the end user uses directly on a regular basis.
- pavs 16y agoMac OS X Leopard receives UNIX 03 certification: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-r...
- 16y ago
- samstokes 16y ago"Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval," said another employee. I really hope that's quoted out of context (e.g. maybe it's really getting a second machine, regardless of OS, that requires CIO approval?). I doubt we're getting the whole story here. I'm sure there are everyday tasks that can be done more effectively on Windows (I've been Linux-only for a couple of years now, so I can't imagine what they are, but I'm sure they exist). And "Windows isn't secure" is absurdly simplistic (particularly at a company which can presumably hire the best sysadmins in the business). Constraining your employees like that to save the IT department a little effort doesn't sound like a good tradeoff. I'd speculate this is more about politics, or dogfooding. Maybe they're trying to move employees from Office to Google Apps, and that's easier if Office is no longer available.
- jrockway 16y agoThis is how big companies work. They want even the smallest task (like, "viewing documentation for the product we just bought") to take days and require multiple levels of managerial approval. Because I guess it's cheaper to have 10 employees doing the same job than it is to get sued if one employee posts confidential information to a blog, or something. (If you've ever wondered why you only get 0.00025% interest on your savings account... now you know.) (This is being downmodded, but it's really true, at least where I work. The IT system is set up for HR people and bank tellers, not programmers. So the programmers just have to deal, because the system isn't setup for "average joe" employees to do anything useful. The good news is, we bought some company that says they won't be able to continue doing business if this stuff doesn't change, and the company we bought is more prestigious than we are ;)
- jrockway 16y agoHow do they test Chrome for Windows?
- pgbovine 16y agoi'm sure they still have dedicated windows test machines (that are sandboxed from their super-secret data) ... or using virtual machines
- melling 16y agohttp://www.virtualbox.org/ http://www.virtualbox.org/ Just run Windows in a VM. You could even rdp or vnc into a few test boxes.
- treyp 16y ago> Just run Windows ...but they're (allegedly) banning Windows.
- known 16y agoMay be they'll outsource it.
- ratsbane 16y agoAs Google still develops and tests for Windows I question that line about needing CIO approval for any Windows machine. Still, great to hear.
- solidus 16y agoI agree--I think the google employee either didn't know what he was talking out or was taken out of context. They could always do windows development and testing inside of VMs though.
- thought_alarm 16y agoSuch a policy would only apply to non-engineering staff, obviously.
- dejb 16y agoThe danger here is that they will lose touch with the 80% of their user base that uses windows. If they don't have enough people who intimately understand the computing experience of their users then their products could suffer.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- amalcon 16y agoThey will almost certainly still have some windows machines around, if only for testing against IE. Some Google employees almost certainly use Windows at home. I really don't think they're going to lose anything major in terms of familiarity.
- dejb 16y agoI don't think it is the same to test something on a platform as developing it on that platform. Developers will instinctively look to take advantage of the strengths of their main platform and work around the weaknesses. With nobody in an entire team using a platform it will probably become an afterthought, left to a separate quality assurance team who are only in a position to correct obvious errors rather than produce excellence.
- budu3 16y agoTrue. A very strange decision. How to you develop products for the majority of people when you don't use their OS and can't relate to their 'pain'.
- johngunderman 16y agothey are not saying that they are getting rid of all windows machines full stop, they are saying that none of their employers can use windows machines as their dev machine / work machines. They don't want to expose any private data to the windows machines. They certainly will keep around some windows boxen for testing purposes.
- 16y ago
- memoryfault 16y agoSecurity in software is relative. Everything is vulnerable. If someone wants to hack into Google's super-secret data and Google is running Linux or Mac OS X, then the hackers will find exploits in that software. This article is a joke for implying that this switch will in any way make them more secure.
- sorbus 16y agoIf they're using Linux, they can find and patch the vulnerability immediately. They could even have a team hunting through the source code looking for vulnerabilities to patch. On Windows, they would have to report the vulnerability to Microsoft, and hope that it's patched soon. It probably would be, but that's still an extra step - and they wouldn't be able to locate it with reference to the code. Also, as another person mentioned, china has access to the Windows source code; Google doesn't. This evens the playing field.
- treyp 16y agobut this was rumored to be a zero-day attack, which means nobody knew about the exploit so it was as-of-yet unpatched. even if they we're running goobuntu with the full capability of patching the source and deploying fixes, a zero-day attack would have made it through in the beginning. switching operating systems is not going to secure against zero-day attacks.
- kwyjibo 16y agoJust imagine all their machines were running debian linux with the wrongly patched openssl binary. About 1024 different private/public keys to rule them all :-)
- MichaelApproved 16y agoRumor has it, the China hack was an inside job. Moving to a different OS probably wouldn't stop that kind of break in. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/was_google_an_inside_job_the_rumor_mill_keeps_chur.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/was_google_an_inside_jo...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ck2 16y agoWasn't Google in China hacked by an internal employee that really worked for the government?
- lushootseed 16y agohttp://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159565/mac_os_x_gets_huge_security_update.html http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159565/mac_os_... It says there were 48+ security fixes. Doesn't matter what the reality is. People just want to believe Apple is more secure.
- tlb 16y agoCount is a poor measure. Both Apple and Microsoft lump together fixes for remote code execution vulnerabilities (terrifying), privilege escalations (not a big deal for personal machines) and denial-of-service vulnerabilities (not important except for public servers) as "security fixes".
- gmlk 16y agoThe main reason a Mac user (in practical terms) is more secure then a Windows user is because Mac users typically are using the latest version of the OS, whereas an typical Windows user is at least one SP behind, maybe more?. Especially if said Windows sits in an office environment where there is a very slow adaption rate. Also, any unauthorized copy of Windows is most likely never updated.
- lelele 16y agoThe main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.). You can only go that far in retrofitting an OS which made the wrong decisions on the start.
- WalterGR 16y ago> The main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.) In specific ways, how is OS X's security architecture more sound than Vista or Windows 7?
- lelele 16y agoTo us - IT guys - they look alike, and we can stay away from dangers quite easily. To an average user - and I know what I'm talking about, since I've taught IT security to those average users - Windows' security architecture - UAC, applications (badly) designed to run as Administrator, ecc.- is full of pitfalls. I guess not everybody at Google is an hacker.
- WalterGR 16y agoBadly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue?
- abrahamsen 16y agoDoes anyone have a source directly from Google? The article doesn't contain much substance.
- jasonkester 16y agoMy advice: Try to avoid making business decisions for emotional reasons. Do business based on rational analysis of the facts, or it will cost you in the long run. Google seems to be ignoring that advice, ditching an entire operating system and all the potentially cool stuff that comes with it because they're a company full of developers who don't particularly like Windows, and because they compete with Microsoft and therefore hold a bit of a grudge. They're certainly within their rights to do this, and they can justify it to themselves as being for "security reasons", but in the end all it will do is weaken them a little bit.
- lelele 16y agoOf course they are not making a business decision for emotional reasons. By choosing an open source OS, Google gains more control on its systems, and avoids using a product of a competitor. Moreover, Google trusts its employees' judgement about a product: if you think your employees are competent, then you listen to them. If something, their decision weakens Microsoft.
- jasonkester 16y agoSure they are. They're saying "Windows has nothing to offer us, and there is no Windows software that our developers might want that justifies having Windows machines in our offices." If you work at Google and want to use, for example, CodeSmith, you have to get special permission from the CIO to build a Windows machine to install it on. Clearly CodeSmith is a good tool that developers might want to use, but because of management's vague fear of "security concerns", it's now off the table for your average dev.
- lelele 16y agoI guess this is a case where you choose not to buy a restaurant because you happen to like a specific dish ^_^ My understanding anyway is that Windows is allowed, if you can demonstrate a strong enough case for it.
- s3graham 16y agoColour me skeptical. Writing Chrome? Testing on IE?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- toto 16y agoSo now we know who they will blame for the next security issue. :p
- known 16y agoClosed source software = USSR Open source software = USA
- cognivore 16y agoHeh, that's funny - that means I'm better at securing Windows than Google.
- naz 16y agoChina isn't trying to hack you
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- dualboot 16y agoThere are a lot of great comments in here. I also see another possible angle on this. What is the actual windows system usage at google currently? It might already be low enough to represent a serious time-sink for IT/security because it's already a serious minority? It makes a lot of sense to maintain somewhat complex policies and management for a vast network of Windows based systems and servers. It is entirely different when you're looking at trying to keep a handful of systems in-line when they are not your primary focus. Obviously this is purely speculative but trying to look at it from another perspective.
- raggi 16y agosingle. user. mode.