PC World Forums: Google's OS Security Claims Called 'idiotic' - PC World Forums

Post your comments for Google's OS Security Claims Called 'idiotic' here

It was 'proven' mathematically that magnetic levitation couldn't work... until someone made it work. They didn't factor in spinning the magnet.
Practical proofs is all I desire. Weak, half-baked arithmetic proofs paid for by companies without the will to take security seriously (like Microsoft) aren't really all that compelling.
Since the 'new' OS (basically Linux polished up to look/act nice for noobs) is built on a solid POSIX foundation that's stood the test of time, they have a big leg up over Microsoft's ad-hoc heap of junk from the start.

Will Google's OS be secure enough to protect its users from Google?

@number6

its as same as "Will Windows OS be secure enough to protect its users from Microsoft?"

You know the answer .....

Nope and Nope ......

:D That's what I thought.

I think that if hackers wanted to break Google Chrome OS, they will. It is not a matter of "if" but "when." But will hackers want to do it? Probably not; hackers like Google, a company that is on their side and direct their hate at MS. Good for Google and bad for MS. Too bad, in some ways. Google is slowly morphing into another MS, albeit an open-source monster driven by putting ads everywhere. I hate those "Ads by Google"

Bruce Schneier is the idiot. What Google said about Chrome OS is exactly what Apple has been saying about Mac OS X in their commercials -- that you won't have to worry about viruses, malwares, etc. Is that really true? No, of course not. Any idiot would know nothing is absolute. But compared to Windows, OS X probably has only a very, very small number of viruses that it is susceptible to. That's kind of comparison allows Apple to rightly claim you are pretty much free of those nasties.

No wonder BT is in trouble, with people like Schneier leading it.

Computer code can NEVER EVER be 100% secure. Forget about math, its simply common sense logic. Any code can be hacked...it could be harder to crack vs being easy. Some bugs are good MOST aren't. Good bugs are those we take advantage of in games to cheap...bad ones kills important data.

I agree Google can certainly learn from the mistakes of others. However I disagree with EvilDave that NIX based OS's are any safer than Windows...OSX is proof of that. What about Facebook and those other guys who got hacked...don't they use Linux on their servers? I am betting they do.

A house in the surburns is actually less safer than one in the city. Why? Bec people who live in the city are not stupid as to leave windows or garage doors open...while people who live in rural areas do.

Sure more crimes happen in cities simply bec there is a greater number of people. Same for software...Chrome OS like OSX couild benefit from siply being a suburb OS where no many users thus hacking it is a waste of time.

As stated in another article, as OSX has become popular attacks have increased...sae will happen with any other OS. Why hack Linux when it is used by a combined total of 1% of teh whole world...

Would you rather rob a bank that has 1% of the worlds money? One that had 10% of it...or one that had 90%....

Check out the banks that are in the top of the hit list. They are not your typical mom and pop corner banks...it is always one of the big boys.

Statics don't lie, people do. Windows is not any more or less safer than any other. Windows is siply attacked more bec it is most used....


What I do like is the fact Googl wants to start fresh and make sure at least security is taken very seriously.

I think MSFT could as well. They could have a group that simply rebuilds Windows from scratch and have teh usual group continue to just build us incremental updates to what we have now. That would give them the 5 or 10 years to completely rebuild Windows.

I would say if NIX based OS's were safer to use, the NIX based OS's being mostly open source, why didn't MSFT build Windows on top of it like Apple did? MSFT did have a NIX based OS too and it was the 3rd widely most used version...

It has been proven the hacks that wrk teh easiest are those that require the user to activate it somehow...Linux and other NIX based OS's other than OSX are all used on a server where there is no user sitting there clicking all day and causing probles. They are just deidcated systems used to dispense data. There is less of a chance to be hacked bec the weakness link is not there...that would be the user. Any OS that requires the weekess link to use it daily can and will be less secure....

If you are a thief and you see two cars on the street.

Car A is fully protected with car alarm, low-jack, and park at well lit area.

Car B is parked at the dark alley with windows rolled down and door unlocked.

Which car will that thief go for?

Car A might take him about 15 minutes and car B is less then 1 minute.

Same car, same color and everything is the same.

If I am that thief .... I would go for the one with administration with ActiveX .... I mean ... windows rolled down with keys is in the ignite.

Maybe....

It has to be a car people wnat to steal.
Anyway look at it this way.
What makes Windows more appealing is it is used in places where valuable information if kept...

So how about we list some...

The US Gov't would have in concealment the most valuable data that can be found in this country...yet they use Windows.
In fact I was watch 20/20 and there is a facility in a mountain that has catalogs and all types of things that are considered irreplacable. All teh info is tracked using a computer running...Windows.

I would guess banks would be the next most valuble...acoount numbers and credit card numbers would be very valuble don't you think? I kid that I think was 12 or so hacked into a mainframe for Vista that was running a NIX based OS. He found Bill Gates credit card number and used it to buy something which is what got hi caught...II wonder if he had got in if that server was running Windows? Think about it. However ALL banks I ever been in use Windows, so do hospital equipment that is monitoring you...cash registered scanner for credit cards and those hand scanners they use to scan UPC codes and more ALL USE WINDOWS.

Windows is not easier to heck and recent test have proven so. It is much harder in fact to directly attack any OS....so you have to attack the weakess element...the USER. Servers don't have users so thus ALL of them are equally as safe.

Also many hack Windows bec they get paid to do so...good or bad. Since NIX based OS's are open source and have very little or no money behind them...what would be the benefit to hack them...I DON'T SEE ANY.

And the web broswer is the weakess application bec it has to connect to the internet. Any OS that doesn't have a web browser at all would be teh safest OS to use.

In the old days of car theft, if you look at the list...luxury cars were not at the top. Cars that are highly stolen are cars that can be taken apart and modified fairly quickly and where teh parts can be sold quickly. Luxury cars are not harder to steal, they are harder to sell which is why they demand a premium if stolen. The parts are not eastier to modify or sell. Back in the 80's and 90's GM cars were stolen the most bec teh parts were interchangeble with other models...something not true of luxury models.

So just bec a car may have open doors and windows and have the keys in the ignition doesn't mean someone will steal it....sure it makes it easier...but there is also another rule...if it is too good to be true it probably is. That easy one could have a bomb in it while the other won't. I rather take my changes with the locked car with lojack and no keys....

I would guess banks would be the next most valuble...acoount numbers and credit card numbers would be very valuble don't you think? A kid that I think was 12 or so hacked into a mainframe for Visa that was running a NIX based OS.

Sorry for typos...my keyboard as letters that have disappeared off the keys..and y company is to cheap to get me a new one...lol
I already bought one set...i refuse too now.

The security weakness in Google OS is that it requires the use of the Internet to get to the Apps. The Internet is not secure and is not private. That is the end of any talk of a "secure" Cloud OS, as far as I'm concerned.