Google ditches Windows over security concerns?

[Jos]

Internet giant Google is reportedly phasing out Windows-based systems from its corporate IT infrastructure and replacing them with alternative platforms like Mac OS X, Linux, and the company's own forthcoming Chrome OS operating system. According employees talking to the Financial Times, a policy of moving users on to non-Windows products where possible was already in place, but January's Chinese hacking incident hastened the move.

The story goes on to quote several employees claiming that clearance from "senior levels" is required to stay on Windows and that Microsoft's operating system is distrusted by definition at the company. Although Google has declined to comment on the matter, something feels greatly exaggerated about this so-called 'purge'. For starters, the largest share of Google visitors is Windows-based, so no matter how web-centric and platform independent the company aims to be, it still makes sense to prioritize development and thoroughly test their products on Windows.

Microsoft's operating system and its Internet Explorer web browser have a reputation for being vulnerable to attacks. It should be noted, however, that the system compromised at Google back in January was running Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP and logged in as Administrator. In other words, at fault was a 9 year old browser on a platform that is two versions out of date. It doesn't seem like a serious effort at security was really made.

Microsoft has made some significant security improvements in the newest versions of Windows. On the other hand, Linux and Macs, while not necessarily more secure, in most cases don't have enough market share to justify coding malware for them. The Windows ban -- if real -- probably isn't company-wide and may be at least in part a way to promote the use of Google's upcoming Chrome OS.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/39148-google-ditches-windows-over-security-concerns.html

 

[Punkid]

Microsoft has made some significant security improvements in the newest versions of Windows. On the other hand, Linux and Macs, while not necessarily more secure, in most cases don't have enough market share to justify coding malware for them.

love this statement lol....mac users go on bragging about being 'malware free' , i think its rather an insult that no one bothers to code malwares for it

 

[Armanian]

haha so true Punkid, i agree 100%, i've always seen it as an insult to mac users, the fact they're not even worth some crooks time.

But still i reckon if Google does this and if any other company follows, Microsoft may actually begin to create something decent for a change, especially since Apple are now no.1 richest technology company in the world, knocking Microsoft of the top, im sure this sort of fiasco for Microsoft would encourage them to do something better. (Or just rob some poors dudes ideas and patent them before him)

 

[fwilliams]

Market share must be why IIS is so much more vulnerable then apache.

 

[Guest]

I haven't had any malware, viruses, trojans, etc., on any PC I've used in nearly a decade. I'm a computer tech, so I know that has a lot to do with it, and I'm sure the employees at Google are quite capable of securing their computers, too. That tells me this has nothing to do with "security," and everything to do with competition and PR.

 

[thatguyandrew92]

Guest said:
I haven't had any malware, viruses, trojans, etc., on any PC I've used in nearly a decade. I'm a computer tech, so I know that has a lot to do with it, and I'm sure the employees at Google are quite capable of securing their computers, too. That tells me this has nothing to do with "security," and everything to do with competition and PR.

+1

 

[Guest]

With a little bit of research, about 1/2 of google employee's were not using windows already.

 

[Issun]

love this statement lol....mac users go on bragging about being 'malware free' , i think its rather an insult that no one bothers to code malwares for it [/quote]

Do we?

 

[Burty117]

Issun said:
love this statement lol....mac users go on bragging about being 'malware free' , i think its rather an insult that no one bothers to code malwares for it

Do we?[/quote]

Yes

 

[Relic]

Guest said:
I haven't had any malware, viruses, trojans, etc., on any PC I've used in nearly a decade. I'm a computer tech, so I know that has a lot to do with it, and I'm sure the employees at Google are quite capable of securing their computers, too. That tells me this has nothing to do with "security," and everything to do with competition and PR.

Agreed, I see this as more of a promotion of their upcoming OS then issues they have with Windows.

 

[matrix86]

Yeah, this is so a stunt to promote their new browser...oops, I mean "operating system"

 

[yukka]

Operating system manufacturer bans main rivals Operating system from the premises? Awesome and nothing to do with PR.

Also glad I dont work at Google running Macs in an enterprise.. shiver..

 

[Guest]

I have been using computers with windows from Dos and 3.,1 and I agrre that MS Windows is more vulnerable to attack. Reasons for this are:
a) MS Uses customer attack feed back for fixing problems as they do not and probably can not take every case scenario when vulnaribilities on theis OS and Internet browser are concerned. The time frame they set to release their products have to be market orientated. If by then their IT people have not found every possible hack they release the product. There is no warranty for any data loss and damage caused by using their products.This is my understanding from reading the agreement shipped with their products.Further on this point IT students are now told that hackers are not bad people as they help expose vulnerabilities so then MS can fix them. The bad guys are the people whom steal your data.
b) Microsoft has the greatest share of the OS market: more home and commercial users use MS products than any other. Why because it is widely understood and distributed with computers as a packkige deal. So it stands to reason that there would be more complications and problems reported by sheer weight of the reported problem numbers. As do the others but mainly the Mac OS or some Linux OS is finalised or refined better when released.
c) More external applications and software packiges are made,used or written to work in with MS Products. So it stands to reason that problems with cpompatibility will arise more often.
d) The MS O S is used more for trainig in Educational Institutions that any other that I know of and it is a platform for training peple in the use and application of their products this includes programing, take a look at how many games are available for MS as an example compared to Mac and Linux. With this in mind think of it this way the more people that understand the code the more likely it is for some one to be able to write code for abusive reasons.
e) Mac OS holds their cards closer to their chest and has a tighter security and download requirement as well as user restrictions. There is a greater choice of software for bypassing MS security available. Linux is similar to Mac OS and there are far less trained users to utilise and fix or hack into some Linux systems. Example for this is I set up a password on windows Vista and forgot the password . I found a software package that allowed me to boot up from a CD with software that got into the Admin password and change it. I have not found similar siftware for Mac oS and have not looked for Linux.
f) Notice that when you use Ubuntu or Mac that most of the drivers are already there and that third party drivers are rarely needed this also goes with office and other applications. A lot of these have been designed and programmed into the OS and cut out the need for internet downloads from various sources. This may also be a big part of why viruses and spyware or malware is recieved from sources that may not offer genuine third paryt products. Therefore if files are tampered with and not detected it may cause corruption of the OS. Ubuntu for example does use third party software but by default it is turned off. And you are encouraged to use the supported software.
Yes this is probably a publicity stunt by google. But MS Windows will not go down in flames as a result and Google Chrome will take some of the market from Linux OS's currently being used and may take some of MS market share. But people are very reluctant to learn how to use new operating systems and office suites. And some business users would rather pay big bucks for service and continuityof their business than try and make changes. In particular in training staff.

 

[Guest]

Apple advertise that their computers don't get virus' and other things but the truth is that they are just as likely to get a virus as any other computer.
But it seems windows is worse because there are about 10x more windows pc's but the percentage of affected windows computers and macs would be very close.

 

[tengeta]

Of course no one writes viruses for The Mac, there is a published hole in Safari that still has yet to be fixed, so they just use that.

 

[Vrmithrax]

Guest said:
I haven't had any malware, viruses, trojans, etc., on any PC I've used in nearly a decade. I'm a computer tech, so I know that has a lot to do with it, and I'm sure the employees at Google are quite capable of securing their computers, too. That tells me this has nothing to do with "security," and everything to do with competition and PR.

Guys, guys, guys... Everyone is jumping to conclusions, which is exactly what this article was written to incite. Think about it. Google would be cutting their own throat to rip Windows completely out of their offices, they have to be sure their products work well on the leading OS on the market. Sure, they want to push their own new OS, but that OS is targeted at netbooks, and do you REALLY think that Google's offices are just full of netbooks and not actual full PCs? So they want to migrate to platforms they find more secure? SO WHAT?!?!?! It's their company, their money, their IT resources that have to support their move. Who are we to tell them what they should do, or criticize their move?

And really, if this was such a big PR move, I would think Google would actually step up and make the announcement. This is the case of someone looking for a story, finding the "security" angle, and digging to see if they can make it juicy. Google isn't talking, only random "employees" are cited as the basis for the entire presumptive article, which is full of speculation and theory. How do we know those employees weren't just night janitors?

Either way, it's Google's decision to make on what they use internally. If they choose to lock out the single largest OS and risk screwing up compatibility with that massive user base, then they deserve the failure they will bring on themselves.

 

[exozito]

They can use linux

 

[jink]

It always amazes me how clingy geeks are to the operating system they use. They believe being "popular" has some kind of direct correlation to quality and justness. Al we have to do is look at "pop" music to see what nonsense this is - popular is very often highly superficial.

That Windows is most popular should ring alarm bells in those that prefer a quality experience rather than the usual childish empty ego-defending slurry of remarks that are typically sputtered at others (which unfortunately only reinforces the "popular=superficial" tendency).

Whether we like it or not, Windows has been struggling for years now to keep pace with OSX on most fronts. Trying to take the dos/win3.1/nt4 antiquated underpinnings but create a modern OSX-like experience has been very challenging. Win7 is the most mature attempt yet.

If being popular means being considerably more attractive to disease, I'll pass thanks.

 

[Guest]

Who cares what OS a person uses, long as it runs wow! Now get online and join my raid!

 

[captaincranky]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Mac Galaxy.......A Cautionary Tale...

Beware boys and girls, this is what happens when you take a survey course in pop psychology

It always amazes me how clingy geeks are to the operating system they use. They believe being "popular" has some kind of direct correlation to quality and justness. Al we have to do is look at "pop" music to see what nonsense this is - popular is very often highly superficial.

That Windows is most popular should ring alarm bells in those that prefer a quality experience rather than the usual childish empty ego-defending slurry of remarks that are typically sputtered at others (which unfortunately only reinforces the "popular=superficial" tendency).

Whether we like it or not, Windows has been struggling for years now to keep pace with OSX on most fronts. Trying to take the dos/win3.1/nt4 antiquated underpinnings but create a modern OSX-like experience has been very challenging. Win7 is the most mature attempt yet.

If being popular means being considerably more attractive to disease, I'll pass thanks.

Oh look, it's a Mac fanboi, suffering from post adolescent intellectual pretense. No surprise there, they all seem to suffer from it. Maybe you should read Sartre too. Existentialism, it was all the rage 40 years ago. "If a Mac Mini breaks in the forrest, is there ever anyone around to get the damned case open". Now would you mind passing the doobie?

 

[red1776]

Wow! All I could think of while reading Jinks comments was Al Gore. I can see it now, The portly "im a PC guy" finishes his statement and Jinks unleashes:

.........defending slurry of remarks that are typically sputtered at others

Not sure what it means, but it sounds like you could get all wet doing it. Peace Jinky....and pass it to me first.... Cap gets the end all soggy .:wave:

 

[captaincranky]

To Be, or Not to Be....DILLIGAF........

Oh sure, make me toke in the wet spot..........

al.That Windows is most popular should ring alarm bells in those that prefer a quality experience rather than the usual childish empty ego-defending slurry of remarks that are typically sputtered at others (which unfortunately only reinforces the "popular=superficial" tendency).

He said as he matriculated furiously, thinking no one was watching....I love my Mac, I love my Mac, I love my Mac.....ahhhhhhh........

 

[jink]

dudes, oh the irony. (passes it on) ~

(cough) I'm mostly a windows guy but seriously, I get tired of this playing catchup with mac all the time and constantly fixing my friends Windows machines (another 2 coming by today). I do have to fix my friends macs too sometimes but the problems are usually so minor in comparison. It's not like Windows is cheap either - the full mcoy (Ultimate) is 3 - 4 X the purchase price of OSX. And all that copy protection BS just sucks too. Just seems like Windows = pain for many - sure they save bucks on the cheaper hardware but I have to question if it is worth the downtime and headaches for the average user?

Windows is not a problem for me - I make good money servicing them all and have no problem keeping mine humming along but I can't in good conscious recommend it to others with much less experience. Especially noobies - Windows sucks for noobies in general - there's always something getting f'd up on their machines - partly PEBCAK and partly just the Windows way.

 

[captaincranky]

dudes, oh the irony.
I get tired of this playing catchup with mac all the time and constantly fixing my friends Windows machines (another 2 coming by today). I do have to fix my friends macs too sometimes but the problems are usually so minor in comparison. It's not like Windows is cheap either - the full mcoy (Ultimate) is 3 - 4 X the purchase price of OSX. And all that copy protection BS just sucks too. Just seems like Windows = pain for many - sure they save bucks on the cheaper hardware but I have to question if it is worth the downtime and headaches for the average user?
.

Well. there are actually several truths in operation here. Macs sell far less than Windows machines, hence less incentive in writing malware for them. That's not a statement of opinion, that's a statement of fact. Mac is way more locked down than Windows with respect to software developers. Fact again.

There's an old saw about, "what's wrong with my car"? To which the mechanic replies, "there's a loose nut between the steering wheel and the seat"!

Many Windows users are responsible for their own security problems. Many of the infected machines that are bemoaned in our malware forum are there because of the users greed with respect to P2P, and the lure of "free" programs, music, and videos. That and plain old ignorance of computers.

With that said, perhaps Macs are the better choice for *****s. It's just ironic that those aforementioned imbeciles, need to run around spouting their sense of well being with an air of superiority, while they're waxing their shiny white cases. I told my son to buy a Mac, for this very reason, I don't feel like reinstalling his OS, everytime his wife downloads some malware from "Facebook".

If you want to run IE6, and accept remote installation of "ActiveX" controls, then expect less than no sympathy from me. From where I stand, the average user is solely responsible for most of the woe that befalls them.

 

[Guest]

@jink "I get tired of this playing catchup with mac all the time and constantly fixing my friends Windows machines"

Well then you're not doing a good job then, you need to start locking them down to limited user rights mode...just as it is on mac, and start charging them (or charging them more) to boot.
I doubt they are completely removing windows, how then can they test for bugs, etc. That's like saying no medium/large company uses

"It's not like Windows is cheap either - the full mcoy (Ultimate) is 3 - 4 X"

It's $139 on ebay for win7 ultimate legit. Factor in 4yr lifespan and that's $2.89 a month, less than a small starbucks coffee.

I agree with cranky, ipad/macs/etc are a good fit for many people....just not for the rest of us who are power users/work in the IT industry, have specialized vertical applications, or hardcore online gamers.

There is a different OS for everyone. But not everyone will be happy with just with only "1" OS choice. I don't want anyone telling me I should use "insert OS name here" just because it's free or hip, or even (arguably) more secure. I have work to do, clients to serve, and games to play and currently Windows 7 fits my bill quite nicely.