Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Switches Away from Windows (Mostly to Mac) Due to Security Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have to agree here, lucid lynx is one of the best looking ubuntu distros ive seen/worked with.
IE is built into windows, if MS would have been honest in the past and included IE as just another application along with other browsers they probably wouldn't have so many issues.
I want to know why google doesn't switch to android instead.
Because it's soooooooooooo good...besides, they're gonna distribute a brand new Android-based "iPed" to ALL Google employees...way to go, guys!
MS IS DEAD. AND SO IS GOOGLE.
Pretty much already there....
Google was highlighted on CBS Sunday Morning 2 weeks ago... all I saw was employees working on Macs.
As much as people would love for Google to switch to Linux, the truth is that this is a big plus for Apple.
Google was highlighted on CBS Sunday Morning 2 weeks ago... all I saw was employees working on Macs.
As much as people would love for Google to switch to Linux, the truth is that this is a big plus for Apple.
No kidding. Windows isn't the problem, it's IE that's the problem. For F's sake, at least use Firefox. How is it that people who work for a tech company were still using IE in 2010?
<sigh> I can tell by your reply that you did not even understand what was written there. I don't reply here for your sake, but rather the other readers who might be interested.
Well, you've already contradicted that big bold statement, so the LOL is on you.
That's exactly what the author meant by not having to "get" root.
That's why inserting a CD from Sony was enough to get pwned w/o a password request.
That's why Windows updates online happen without user participation. Your OS is pwned.
On Mac and Unix, hackers need to "get" root... it isn't available to them by design.
You are wrong. ACLs have been implemented in Unix for quite a while now. Where did you think Windows got them from?
You don't seem to get that Windows needs ACLs precisely because it *inherently* lacks the provisions for that "3x3 matrix" as you call it. ACLs don't add power (lol), they add flexibility.
There ain't a single ACL down in OSX's system because
-rwx------ root wheel
is already *enough* to totally stop anyone that isn't root (along with similar perms on the parent folder). No ACL necessary. Windows needs ACLs because getting root is a piece of cake. You get pwned because "ownership" isn't a part of its vocabulary deep down where it counts.
Now... what does it take to manipulate ACLs on Windows? Again, any hacker that gets in is going to know how to shoo them away... because the underlying structure itself doesn't grok basic ownership & privileges, and thus will allow those ACLs to be tweaked. ActiveX... system control in any document? Super. VBScript? Thank you very much.
Again, you misunderstand the article's point while simultaneously proving you don't know that OSX has other ways of granting authorization. Most such password requests appear automatically when the user performs the questionable action. If you want a real good "LOL" just read your own post.
Yeah right, it's just as easy to "write" one.
Installing it is another matter.
Better hit the books friend, you need it.
LOL ... i am not even sure this is worth a response but here goes.
Users are by default admins.. Did you even read what I wrote?? WELL let me refresh you. The statement that rootkits don't have to 'get root' is not true.. that is saying that anything, any program, at any time has admin privileges. This is not true. This is only the case of the user as admin rights and allows exe rights to all programs. This is setup by default because users don't know better, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH THE WINDOWS OS! To fix this, M$ put in notifications (the whole cancel or allow thing). However users hated this and turned it off.. and then they complained when a program installed a rootkit driver. Again. USER ERROR. Not something wrong with the OS.
In windows hackers can't get root either. The USER HAS TO APPROVE THAT. If they approve it by default, thats the users fault, Not. The. OS.
The only difference is in Unix and Mac OS 10, the user has to enter in their password. In windows you have a prompt to grant the program admin rights. IDK about.. that but the prompt just seems easier to me ... or we can just open up a terminal and enter some shell commands... i guess that's sexier.
ACL have been in Windows since 1993 when windows NT was released.. This is a common fanboy error that windows stole ACL's form linux or whoever. Again Object based vers file based. Mac OS10 didn't have them until tiger actually lol.
I think you misunderstood me. Retina scans as in the security assessment program "Retina". Not having anything to do with human-eyes
I'm not missing the point at all. My point is I'm not speculating about any of this. This sort of thing is what I do, it is my career to know about security.
You are confusing "low-hanging fruit" with "the tree that has the most fruit."
The virus writers have pretty much identified which systems are the easiest to crack. It's certainly not one factor, but a combination of many: how many systems are deployed, the inherent security features, the behavior of the users, the responsiveness in maintaining and updating systems, etc.
Virus writers are lazy. They want to do the least amount of work for the most effect. If writing Apache exploits was so easy, they would have done it and glossed over IIS.
I thought IE was simply a component in Windows 7. I have it deactivated in all of my machine installs.
Great news for Apple and its market capitalization. How exciting it is to see Apple grow as it has.
This isn't completely true.
If the Windows user is a member of the Administrator group, the UAC popup is the [yes]/[no] dialogue that you describe. Since the user has already authenticated as an administrator - it would add no real security to ask for the password *again*. (On Unix a root user is never questioned.)
If the Windows user is not a member of the Administrator group, the UAC dialogue box *will* ask for an administrator password. An example is below: (the other icons are for the two other users in the administrator group - any admin password can be used)
Attachments
But that's like wishing you didn't need two pieces of toilet tissue to do the daily messy job we all have in common with bears!
You really can't expect a creature like Gates to change his act. He built his company on an OS he BOUGHT for $25,000 and simply renamed, then took all the credit for, as if he's some genius. He's not. Neither is he a great business man. He's a double dealing monopolist.
Therefore, embedding ie was as much in his DNA as it is in Windows'. Yes, it's a terribly short sighted strategy. Yet it's sustained the company for nearly 30 years, but it's going to mark the death of the entire bad dream very quickly now.
Neither Android nor Chrome OS have all the development and debug tools needed for the zillions of different software projects that Google people work on.
On my Mac, I can easily develop stuff for my web sites, linux servers, Mac, iPhone, Android, webOS and PalmOS devices, Arduino gadgets, and as well as some linux and Windows apps, as well as use over half a dozen different programming languages.
Sigh... Check out any presentation on Google IO the last three years, and chances are you'll see a guy with a mac.
The dispute about OSX vs Windows security is clearly misplaced
Analysts agree that Google's security excuse for dumping Windows is bogus.
"There must be other motives besides security for such a move," said John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner who specializes in security issues. "As an academic exercise, yes, the 'security-by-obscurity' model works," he said, referring to the concept that users are safer running Mac OS X and Linux because they have much smaller market shares than Windows, and so offer hackers a less attractive target.
That's why most malware is written for Windows machines, Pescatore added.
"But for Google -- or for that matter a company like Oracle or Cisco -- it doesn't, because [attackers] target them specifically," he continued. "If [hackers] know that Google uses Macs, then they'll just target the company with Mac malware. And Mac malware exists."
Full article here.
Analysts agree that Google's security excuse for dumping Windows is bogus.
"There must be other motives besides security for such a move," said John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner who specializes in security issues. "As an academic exercise, yes, the 'security-by-obscurity' model works," he said, referring to the concept that users are safer running Mac OS X and Linux because they have much smaller market shares than Windows, and so offer hackers a less attractive target.
That's why most malware is written for Windows machines, Pescatore added.
"But for Google -- or for that matter a company like Oracle or Cisco -- it doesn't, because [attackers] target them specifically," he continued. "If [hackers] know that Google uses Macs, then they'll just target the company with Mac malware. And Mac malware exists."
Full article here.
Here's a thought, maybe Google is just sick and tired of dealing with Windows in general. Is that so hard for you to swallow? Ever thought about how expensive it is for companies renewing Windows licenses? At that point new hardware and a new and more secure OS makes perfect sense.
Everyone here knows analyst is just code for "Don't know what they are talking about and can't get a real job."
Nope. More likely Google is switching to Unix-based system because the bulk of their software development needs now is for Android (Unix-based system). They will obviously have to keep a lot of Windows machines as well since they develop software for Windows too.
While you're feeling so generous with information,
please explain how a hole in a browser got transformed into a rootkit so firmly entrenched that the patch sent from Redmond failed to dislodge it at first. Are we saying the computer in question had all safeguards (or just UAC) disabled? No OS flaw whatsoever... rather, simply a goofy employee (running as full SA user or something?) while connected to the Internet? I simply can't find one news account which suggests that the operator was in any way responsible. (i.e., running in unprotected mode or whatever). I'd think that part would be in large bold letters.
The attack - codenamed Operation Aurora - affected Google and at least 20 other firms, including Adobe, Juniper Networks, Rackspace, Yahoo! and Symantec.
All those companies... plus Symantec too? ...with users running IE6, and UAC turned off? That's the story?
Doesn't square up somehow.
Ah, I see, my thought is totally wrong because you said so and you're thought has to be right?
. I highly doubt they will be keeping around a LOT of Windows machines, even for development. They can use VM's on the Mac.