Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Google outlaws Windows, but what if Microsoft outlaws Google...?
As of today, if you want a Microsoft machine at the Google offices, you need permission from the Chief Information Officer himself -- otherwise, Google employees are being given the choice of either a Mac or Linux desktop machine.
But... I wonder if Google spoke to Microsoft before publicly decrying and defaming the state of Windows security -- this is libel. This is yet another example of Microsoft unduly paying the price for old installations of Windows and Internet Explorer 6 -- something the CIO at Google should be held accountable for, not Microsoft.
All recent research and attempted hacks would suggest that Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 8 is one of the most secure Web browsing platforms out there. It's certainly more secure than Mac combined with Safari -- and if this is the start of a mass exodus from Microsoft to Apple in the workplace... well, Apple will be forced to tighten things up! As our our pale white inbred siblings at TUAW suggest, you can be sure that more malware will target Mac if it is adopted by large businesses.
And finally, what if Microsoft turned the tables on Google and simply banned you from searching it on Windows computers? What if 'google.com' was redirected to 'bing.com'? Microsoft certainly has grounds for such an act: after all, top Google results often contain spyware or malicious malware.
But alas, Microsoft would never do such a thing. Its balls have already been well and truly trampled after decades of litigation. Google, however... Google is just warming up; Google's just testing its mettle.
Comments
57
Subscribe to commentsGavJun 1st 2010 8:56AM
Microsoft should start making comments about the poor security of OS9
216Jun 1st 2010 8:58AM
Touche good sir
SilverWaveJun 1st 2010 3:53PM
Its interesting that some think Google should use a competitors OS...
Does it not make more sense to use any other OS, rather than hand money to your enemy?
If there is added security benefit as well then that's got to be a no brainer, business wise surely?
Lasse ValentiniJun 1st 2010 9:01AM
"And finally, what if Microsoft turned the tables on Google and simply banned you from searching it on Windows computers? What if 'google.com' was redirected to 'bing.com'? Microsoft certainly has grounds for such an act: after all, top Google results often contain spyware or malicious malware."
If Microsoft pulled such a number they'd get a antitrust case (from EU at least) AND they would be compared to China with respect to censoring the net. It would be the stupidest thing they'd ever get to do, so no wonder they don't..
J.T. MillJun 1st 2010 9:25AM
I'm not exactly sure this is libel, I mean, they did get hacked, after all. If this was Google coming out and saying, "We're not using Windows because we're always getting Malware", then you'd be right. However, when you're being specifically targeted in a spear phishing attack, then the attacker knows exactly what you're using, and can take advantage of known zero day exploits in combination with classic social engineering.
From interviews with Google employees, they make it sound like it was pretty much already a Linux/Mac shop to begin with, and that this was formalizing things. While overall this might not do much for their security, at least they'll get a small grace period where all of their would be attackers have to learn Linux and OS X exploits ;P
Sebastian AnthonyJun 1st 2010 11:05AM
I think everyone knows that hacking's inevitable, though -- that's the problem. This is just security through obscurity.
If anything, Google is smart. Google wouldn't opt for security through obscurity -- it's simply not how you conduct business at that kind of scale!
There must be another reason for moving away from Windows/Microsoft -- it's probably political :)
SilverWaveJun 1st 2010 3:23PM
I think stegu on groklaw has a good point here:
Quote:
"Windows is the ONLY platform where viruses are a problem.
The common defence that this is because "Windows is
everywhere" and every other platform has a marginal
market share is becoming extremely hollow. On the
server side, Linux is pretty dominant. A high-bandwidth
server would be the obvious target for a very useful
attack, but still we see no Linux viruses. Exploits,
yes, and malware to some small extent, but no viruses.
Same thing with MacOS X: no viruses, not a problem.
Windows itself is the problem."
AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 2:14AM
Windows is not the problem, SilverWave. The problem is the people who don't keep things up to date and well protected. In any case, Google HQ should be behind firewalls and several other layers of security and have their computers up to date like any responsible business would do. So Windows has so many pieces of malware targeting it. Ok. Protect yourself against them!
The entire time Windows 7 has been out, there have been around 20 different security patches released. The entire time Snow Leopard has been out, over 100 different vulnerabilities have been found (with new ones being found all the time). Apple may have only released a few patches, but that is because they lump them all together. Throughout Leopard's existence, over 200 different vulnerabilities have been found.
Cliched arguments are failed arguments and can only be used by lazy people.
Drew GreenJun 1st 2010 9:09AM
Maybe MS should should add an entry for Google in the default HOSTS file directing the domain name to Bing's IP. Modifiable by the user, but still a blow to Google nonetheless.
Tim HaakJun 1st 2010 9:15AM
If Microsoft were to ban Google in there operating system it would not be the same at all. What would be more similar is if they told all employee's to only use bing at work. Which I would not be surprised if they did already.
Secondly where did it say that they would be moving to Apple? Why not some Linux variant or (don't think this would happen) Chrome OS. As in the security tests your talking about Google Chrome came out tops.
JoshuaJun 1st 2010 9:14AM
"And finally, what if Microsoft turned the tables on Google and simply banned you from searching it on Windows computers? What if 'google.com' was redirected to 'bing.com'? Microsoft certainly has grounds for such an act: after all, top Google results often contain spyware or malicious malware."
You're not seriously comparing Google deciding not to use Windows in their company to Microsoft blocking access to Google in Windows, are you? Please tell you to don't think those acts are in any way equivalent.
Jason BrettJun 1st 2010 9:17AM
Would you kindly link to the official statement from Google that is "publicly decrying and defaming the state of Windows security?" For that matter, could you kindly point me to your law degree?
I think this information has been made public by anonymous Google employees.
And if Microsoft were to redirect all INTERNAL searches to Bing, why would that constitute any legal concern for anyone in the world? They, like Google, are entitled to whatever internal IT practices they see fit.
Jason BrettJun 1st 2010 9:22AM
Wow, I just re-read your statement regarding MSFT turning tables on GOOG again.
I just assumed you had the sense to compare Google allegedly banning Windows internally to Microsoft hypothetically banning Google search inside their own corporate firewall.
Silly me. The comparison you make is simply not equivalent.
fiendsanJun 1st 2010 9:21AM
this post makes little sense, especially the commentary to the news, the fact is, its not google's fault that google might have old microsoft software, its microsofts fault for not properly securing their own software, old as it may be, yes cause older mac osx and older linux software is still pretty secure... by using mac osx or linux they have a clearer and cheaper upgrade path, if newer microsoft windows/software licenses were cheaper im sure google would just upgrade everything, i guess they will still keep thousands of microsoft windows for testing and software building for windows, this seems to be only for the day to day and non-windows related computing.
Daniel BloisJun 1st 2010 10:43AM
You are wrong. Older linux and Mac is less secure than currently and it has been proven time and time again that Windows is More secure than the both of them. The reason Windows is broken into more often is there are many more installs - that is the only reason. So yes it is google's fault they have old Microsoft products.
stinlen56Jun 1st 2010 10:56AM
that's a lot of conjecture and a whole lot of kool-aid
ScraynJun 1st 2010 8:32PM
"The fact is, it is Google's fault that Google might have old Microsoft software. They should have upgraded to IE8 as soon as it came out. That might have prevented the attacks and not led Google to make such ridiculous claims."
Fixed for accuracy.
NonprofitTechJun 1st 2010 9:22AM
"This is yet another example of Microsoft unduly paying the price for old installations of Windows and Internet Explorer 6 -- something the CIO at Google should be held accountable for, not Microsoft."
That is an excellent point Sebastian. If a hack originating from my organization was due to an IE6 installation... I wouldn't be getting rid of Windows in my offices, I'd be getting rid of the person responsible for the computers in my offices. This comes off to me as a misdirection play on this CIO's part.
ericloeweJun 1st 2010 2:07PM
Google, of all companies, should install IE8, if not only to patch things up.I mean, they have their own browser and I really don't think they have legacy software lying around that needs IE6...
simonJun 1st 2010 9:23AM
This article is just so silly it has to be commented on. It ranks at the level of a youtube/digg comment.