4 ms·
Is it not: https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/create-context-aware-access-levels https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/creat
by lokar 4mo ago
Is it not:
https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/create-context-aware-access-levels https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/create...
The Org admin can put all sorts of restrictions on who can do what based on the client device setup.
- saagarjha 4mo agoWhy is there a policy to require “Chrome” and not a policy to require another browser, hmm?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- insanitybit 4mo agoGoogle offers "Managed Chrome" as a service. What would you like them to do, offer "Managed Firefox"? Should AWS offer "Managed GCP"?
- saagarjha 4mo agoI don’t think Google should also offer a product that detects “managed Chrome”
- eli 4mo agoI don't think Google should also be allowed to remain in charge of Chrome at all but here we are.
- insanitybit 4mo agoUh, why? Context Aware Access is a policy attestation service. Managed Chrome is exactly the sort of thing you'd have policies for.
- hobofan 4mo agoOrganization admins may roll out hardened Firefox settings via their MDM solution, and then based on that want to restrict usage to Firefox.
- makeitdouble 4mo agoGoogle offering "Managed Chrome" is probably the root issue. Call me old school, but wedging an already dominant browser to be the only full fledge option in GSuite using companies reeks anti-competition.
- lokar 4mo agoYou don’t have to use managed chrome to use gsuite
- aaomidi 4mo agoI mean the issue here is Google using its dominant power to push for a specific browser within a security software they control. This is a difference between America and Europe in mentality towards this.
- lokar 4mo agoI don’t think that’s true. They support OS verification for windows and Mac. If Firefox implemented verification (I doubt they would) and there was customer demand I think they would support it.
- schuyler2d 4mo agoMicrosoft has a chrome and Firefox extension for similar management lockdown
- Macha 4mo agoBecause Google is able to configure Chrome to the admin's liking.
- lokar 4mo agoYep, there are a lot of high risk settings, especially extensions
- Tostino 4mo ago"wow look at all these options available...to limit users to only use software provided by the same corp" you are missing the point entirely.
- whateverboat 4mo agoUnrelated to this news, but this is so rudimentary, when the correct solution instead is: 1. Make it ridiculously easy to install hardware vendor keys and register it with OS of choice. (like a standardized dialog box in UEFI and a standardized/regulated IPMI-like interface) 2. Allow for only measured boot on those devices. 3. Provided facility to verify signatures. Do this on consumer and enterprise laptops and desktops alike and all of these weird set of conditions just go out of play and replaced by something much much simpler.
- realusername 4mo ago> The Org admin can put all sorts of restrictions on who can do what based on the client device setup. can you put a restriction to ban Chrome and force Firefox then?
- bigfatkitten 4mo agoIf you wanted to, yes.
- handoflixue 4mo agoCan you provide a link or screenshot of that feature? Because other people are saying no you cannot