Microsoft responds to Google's Windows purge

[Matthew DeCarlo]

Rumors spread today that Google is removing Windows from its internal machines due to security concerns, favoring OS X, Linux and its own soon-to-debut Chrome OS. Although the search company has yet to acknowledge those rumblings, Microsoft felt compelled to share its two cents anyway.

In a blog post today, Redmond's Brandon LeBlanc noted that there is some irony in heckling Windows' security. LeBlanc points to a recent Mashable story which reported that Yale University halted its transition to Gmail and Google Apps for Education package, citing both security and privacy concerns.

He further added that despite Microsoft's previous shortcomings, the company has stepped up its game in the security department. LeBlanc says that hackers, third party influentials, and industry leaders like Cisco tell Microsoft that its "focus and investment continues to surpass others."

The post lists some of Microsoft's recent security improvements, including more frequent Windows Updates (many of which users receive automatically), the addition and/or enhancement of BitLocker, Windows Firewall, Parental Controls, and ASLR in Windows 7, and more.

LeBlanc couldn't resist taking a jab at the fact that Macs also face security threats, linking an InfoWorld article posted today that suggests Macs are under attack by "high-risk spyware." It also questions the future of security on Apple's platforms, hinting that it may find itself the target of more attacks as its profile and user base grows.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/39154-microsoft-responds-to-googles-windows-purge.html

 

[Guest]

Microsoft, I pity you....

 

[Regenweald]

It is ironic that google, a company that with it's every move tries to strip away the privacy of every internet user possible (why do street view cars possess hardware and software designed to capture data from private networks anyway?), is citing security as a reason to purge microsoft from it's systems. THAT, is funny

 

[Guest]

Only reason Mac seems more secure is because it's user base it's very low which hackers don't seem to bother too much to try to produce viruses and malware because they won't get notice. Once Mac's user base grows closer to what windows has then you'll start seeing more and more viruses pop up here and there.

 

[matrix86]

Guest said:
Microsoft, I pity you....

Why? LeBlanc told the truth. Google itself has been the center of privacy concerns, and there are viruses for Mac. And the more popular it becomes (meaning, the more it rises in the OS market that Microsoft currently dominates) the more viruses you'll see for it.

Quoted from the earlier article on this subject:

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.

Makes perfect sense to me
So, why do you pity Microsoft?

 

[captaincranky]

It is ironic that google, a company that with it's every move tries to strip away the privacy of every internet user possible (why do street view cars possess hardware and software designed to capture data from private networks anyway?), is citing security as a reason to purge microsoft from it's systems. THAT, is funny

No, that's hypocrisy, it's not even close to funny.

Well, how much of this nonsense is Google politics, trying to talk up its own BS operating system?

I'm not a M$ fanboi, but recently they have done quite a few very positive things toward better security. Take for example, "M$ Security Essentials".

Not Google, nor Apple can run an ad campaign without trashing M$. My question is "why can't they sell their own junk without doing so".

Apple is apparently trying with the "iPad". The trouble is, the first half of the ad still sounds like a commercial for a feminine hygiene product. To wit, "It's beautiful, it's thin, it lasts all day", sure sounds like a pantie liner to me.

Every night I say my prayers thus, "dear God, please let the hackers write some really destructive malware for Mac. It may be selfish I know, but God, I'm sooooo sick of listening to those a**h***s".

 

[Fragrant Coit]

From what I can gather, it was an XP machine running IE6 that was hacked.

In the real world, there's still a hell of a lot of these PC's / Lappys still using XP & IE6.
I work as a self employed Mobile Computer Tech, and most casual users don't want to "update" to IE8, let alone a new O/S as they are comfortable with what they know & do not want the expense of a new PC to run W7 {majority of my customers have "just" updated to XP & forked out for a "new" PC - read 8 or 9 years ago, going from Win 9x to XP}.

I've turned a lot of these people onto Firefox - most can see the web speed increase instantly - but some remain steadfast & Luddite. The odd person may even take me up on installing Ubuntu & illeviating most security woes, but until all P4 & Socket A machines actually fail- i.e Motherboard dies - , then IE6 will continue to be in widespread use.

I'm no M$ fan, IE shouldn't have been so flawed in the 1st place, but when people use ancient - in Tech time - software, then there are always going to be people who'll try and exploit any vulnerability for monetary or egotistical profit.

Just my 2c worth...

 

[Guest]

In reality, if Google can't secure Windows based systems internally, they aren't as smart as they are given credit for. Apparently they don't have the legacy requirements that cause certain corporate environments to still use XP, so that's not really a valid excuse.

 

[Xclusiveitalian]

Mac OS brides itself on the fact that it's safe so there not taking many measures to protect themselves so when malware and other viruses do come out i expect really bad results.

 

[slh28]

captaincranky said:
Not Google, nor Apple can run an ad campaign without trashing M$. My question is "why can't they sell their own junk without doing so".

Yeah totally agree, I think companies should be spending time promoting and improving their own products rather than go after the competition. But then I've noticed that US adverts are generally a lot less subtle, whether it be Apple dissing M$ or GM stating that Toyotas are crap.

Anyway, I can see Google gradually turning more and more evil, let's see how long their reputation lasts.

 

[Guest]

@matrix86

No, you see, the thing is, whatever you think Google is, and whatever you think Microsoft and Apple are, has nothing to do with the problem here. Windows is still the most insecure OS out of the mostly used. THAT is why I pity Microsoft, for trying to sugar coat the truth. Mac OS X, and Linux are superior, security-wise.

Nothing more, nothing less....

 

[madboyv1]

Guest said:
@matrix86

No, you see, the thing is, whatever you think Google is, and whatever you think Microsoft and Apple are, has nothing to do with the problem here. Windows is still the most insecure OS out of the mostly used. THAT is why I pity Microsoft, for trying to sugar coat the truth. Mac OS X, and Linux are superior, security-wise.

Nothing more, nothing less....

First of all, most people are not thinking of what "Google, Microsoft and Apple are", they (and the article) are pointing out that due to the popularity of the OS, Windows in general is more prone to attacks because the effect of the attack is likely to affect a larger target audience. It is not as simple as just saying the security issue is as black and white as how the operating system is designed, it is also a function of how widespread in both the global and regional markets an operating system is, as well as the kind of users and what software is installed on their computers.

 

[lataak]

It always surprises me when people usually defend Microsoft. It is like a poor man taking refugee in the home of a rich man and no matter what, he can't say anything bad about the man. The problems of Windows is too much, let us accept this fact. I know most us use Windows but that should not make us defend Microsoft. The vulnerability of Windows a danger for company like Google who has millions of customer data and search engine indexes & cache. So what is the problem if Google take more a secure option? Besides, Microsoft works not for the good of the software world, but to kill other competing companies and become monopolist.

 

[Guest]

So, is the mini-van, one of the most popular vehicles on the road, the most stolen?

 

[Guest]

@madboyv1

Is linux not the most popular for servers?

Do servers contain more data than your PC plus a million others?

Would it not be worth it to hack a server?

Also see my comment about mini-vans.

 

[Burty117]

Wow! Lataak and Guest, Trust me on this, Windows is way more secure than the latest Builds of the Linux Kernal including Mac OS X, just google "virus for Linux" and you'll find that even with the latest updates to Mac OS X or the latest Ubuntu, the virus can actually wipe hard drives, Steal data without any alert at all! copy files accross the internet and the more tricky one as it requires the user to actually accept the installation, of course it could just pretend to be an existing program so of course the user allows it through and now the hackers have a leased line to use your machine for just about anything.

Now down to the issues with windows, yes it does get infected more, but with near 90% of the market can you really expected no security issues? And the Infections i've seen on Vista and 7 are far less serious, Windows XP i have seen just as bad a virus's such as the ones i've mentioned above but with Vista the worst i've come accross was porn ad's being thrown around the computer causing it to be slow and on windows 7 Sophos has picked up that the HP toolbar has a dodgy proccess killer.exe which isn't actually a virus.

Fact is, Google should be keeping their systems not just up-to-date but locked down with Firewalls so even if a hacker could get in, it shouldn't be allowed out.

This is just google trying to get a bit of free publicity for their OS, nothing more or less.

 

[Burty117]

Guest said:
So, is the mini-van, one of the most popular vehicles on the road, the most stolen?

Toyota is the most brought brand of car and also has the highest record of call backs for faults with their cars. No point trying to compare a popular car on this one as virus's and popularity have no similarity in this particular arguement, unless of cause cars can get Virus's already.

 

[Archean]

lataak said:
It always surprises me when people usually defend Microsoft. It is like a poor man taking refugee in the home of a rich man and no matter what, he can't say anything bad about the man. The problems of Windows is too much, let us accept this fact. I know most us use Windows but that should not make us defend Microsoft. The vulnerability of Windows a danger for company like Google who has millions of customer data and search engine indexes & cache. So what is the problem if Google take more a secure option? Besides, Microsoft works not for the good of the software world, but to kill other competing companies and become monopolist.

It is exactly the same for Google or any other business, so i am not buying that MS killing others s***. I remember saying here that (while i was still in IT and tracking developments more regularly) non-MS OSes were suffering from more security issues on average each week. But anyway, as some very informed members already pointed, no OS is completely secured, neither it can every be, there will be issues with them from time to time. And reason there are less issues with MacOS or Google's whatever that stupid OS is called because hardly any one uses it. I believe, MS is in much better position now to compete Google in some areas much more effectively, infact they can simply eliminate google's useless docs (which is neither good nor of much use for above average users) with their better office online solutions, and even in the search arena; provided they play their cards right. I believe in the longer run Google is in much more vulnerable position than MS is IMHO, because they so heavily rely on just one source of revenue.

Edit:
Earlier I was looking for this excellent article for all those google fanbois but couldn't find it beside I was at work.

 

[Guest]

"I try to explain that permissions on Linux make such tribute unnecessary. Without quibbling over the definitions of viruses and trojans, I tell them that neither can execute on your machine unless you explicitly give them permission to do so.

Permissions on Linux are universal. They cover three things you can do with files: read, write, and execute. Not only that, they come in three levels: for the root user, for the individual user who is signed in, and for the rest of the world. Typically, software that can impact the system as a whole requires root privileges to run.

Microsoft designed Windows to enable outsiders to execute software on your system. The company justifies that design by saying it enriches the user experience if a Web site can do "cool" things on your desktop. It should be clear by now that the only people being enriched by that design decision are those who make a buck providing additional security or repairing the damage to systems caused by it."
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/8261-note-to-new-linux-users-no-antivirus-needed


Re: Toyota
Recalls are more akin to security updates. Stealing your car is more like getting a virus on your PC, you are no longer in control, some one with malicious intent is in control.
Mini-vans are most prevalent where I live, they are from from the top of the hit list of most stolen vehicles.

Servers contain more data and are a more valuable target than your PC.

Ever hear of pwn2own? Linux isn't included anymore because it is too difficult to compromise. At least according to past winning experts. Guess $40 000 isn't enough incentive.

 

[captaincranky]

Toyota is the most brought brand of car and also has the highest record of call backs for faults with their cars. No point trying to compare a popular car on this one as virus's and popularity have no similarity in this particular arguement, unless of cause cars can get Virus's already.

I still drive a '79 automobile because it doesn't have an onboard computer! Although truth to tell, it isn't because I think it would be hacked. In hindsight, if a car does have a computer, Google has probably found a way to run their "Google Analytics" script on it. They're everywhere I tell you. (Insert looking over its shoulder, paranoid "smiley", >>here<<)...!

 

[TJGeezer]

@captaincranky - I bet you'll catch from flames for that. FWIW, I agree with you but couldn't have said it as well.

 

[ravisunny2]

"Permissions on Linux are universal. They cover three things you can do with files: read, write, and execute. Not only that, they come in three levels: for the root user, for the individual user who is signed in, and for the rest of the world. Typically, software that can impact the system as a whole requires root privileges to run."

And these permissions cannot be altered by an attacker ?

 

[TJGeezer]

burty117 said:

Guest said:
So, is the mini-van, one of the most popular vehicles on the road, the most stolen?

Toyota is the most brought brand of car and also has the highest record of call backs for faults with their cars. No point trying to compare a popular car on this one as virus's and popularity have no similarity in this particular arguement, unless of cause cars can get Virus's already.

See http://news.discovery.com/tech/first-human-infected-with-a-computer-virus.html

Coming soon to a highway near you: Human with subcutaneous RFID i.d. chip to unlock house, enable mobile phone, access workplace, etc., gets virus. Car with RFID diagnostic i/o gets its multiple internal computers virused. Passes same on to every passing newer car and truck. What fun for a script kiddie!

 

[Burty117]

LOL! =)

 

[Burty117]

Guest said:
"I try to explain that permissions on Linux make such tribute unnecessary. Without quibbling over the definitions of viruses and trojans, I tell them that neither can execute on your machine unless you explicitly give them permission to do so.

Permissions on Linux are universal. They cover three things you can do with files: read, write, and execute. Not only that, they come in three levels: for the root user, for the individual user who is signed in, and for the rest of the world. Typically, software that can impact the system as a whole requires root privileges to run.

Microsoft designed Windows to enable outsiders to execute software on your system. The company justifies that design by saying it enriches the user experience if a Web site can do "cool" things on your desktop. It should be clear by now that the only people being enriched by that design decision are those who make a buck providing additional security or repairing the damage to systems caused by it."
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/8261-note-to-new-linux-users-no-antivirus-needed

Re: Toyota
Recalls are more akin to security updates. Stealing your car is more like getting a virus on your PC, you are no longer in control, some one with malicious intent is in control.
Mini-vans are most prevalent where I live, they are from from the top of the hit list of most stolen vehicles.

Servers contain more data and are a more valuable target than your PC.

Ever hear of pwn2own? Linux isn't included anymore because it is too difficult to compromise. At least according to past winning experts. Guess $40 000 isn't enough incentive.

Dude, after doing a quick google i think you should probably stop while you've got the chance to, as a post above me said, what stops a hacker from changing the permissions? actually they already do if i read my stuff right...