Security Guru Calls Chrome OS's Security Claims "Idiotic"
Noted security guru Bruce Schneier, chief technologist at BT, has scoffed at Google's claims about its new OS, just announced yesterday. According to the Google blog post, Chrome OS represents a complete redesign of the underlying security architecture of the OS "so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates." A bold statement to say the least...and apparently one Schneier doesn't think too much of. "It's an idiotic claim," he says.
In a Yahoo News story, it's reported that Schneier isn't completely buying Google's promises. "It was mathematically proved decades ago that it is impossible -- not an engineering impossibility, not technologically impossible, but the 2+2=3 kind of impossible -- to create an operating system that is immune to viruses."
That seems to us like he's picking on the semantics of Google's statement just a bit. Google says that users "won't have to deal with viruses," and Schneier is noting that it's simply not possible to create an OS that can't be taken down by malware. While that may be the case, it's likely that Chrome OS is going to be arguably more secure than the other consumer operating systems currently in use today. In fact, we didn't take Google's statement to mean that Chrome OS couldn't get a virus EVER; we just figured they meant it was a lot harder to get one on their new OS - didn't you?
Even Schneier himself admits that an OS redesign which takes security into account "all the way up and down" could make for a more secure OS than the ones available today. However, that's different than saying that users won't have to deal with malware, he added.
Carl Leonard, security research manager of Websense EMEA, also shares Schneier's beliefs. "All software is susceptible to issues - it just depends on how much effort the malware author wants to go to and how much profit can be made," he said. "Already we have seen vulnerabilities and issues with the Chrome browser, and Google even ran a contest in which two well-known security researchers found 12 exploitable security flaws in the company's Native Client system."
OK, we get it: Chrome OS can get malware...technically speaking. But won't it get less of it?
Forrester Research analyst Andrew Jaquith, on the other hand, has more positive things to say about Google's new OS. He notes that the company has made strong security strides through its Native Client code technology and Chrome web browser, which includes features such as "sandboxing" which could help contain malware. "If [Google] brings that kind of thinking to the operating system and looks at it from a clean sheet of paper, they should be able to introduce some significant improvements," he said.
Do you think the security community is making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to Google's security claims? Or do you think they were right to point out that no OS is invulnerable to attack?
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Cool.
At least a couple of friends of mine bought Macs because "they don't get viruses" -- and then they got viruses! The geek community probably knows better, but many average consumers take these claims literally.
Schneier is a genius, no doubt about it. He is totally right there is no way Google OS will be completely secure. Google chose a few bad words to describe the security I guess but none the less because it is new might mean that it will be more insecure (might, not always true). And because it is web based it will be open to newer forms of attacks and viruses and worms.
Because it is Linux based it will still be a bit stronger but none the less its not the holy grail of OS.
What else can "immune to viruses" mean? It implies that the new Google OS can't get them. While you personally understand that it's impossible to make that claim, the average user does not.
Making open source software is always a safer bet for security - since more eyes can review the code and patch holes. Of course, the reverse is equally true - in that more eyes can see the holes and attack them - but generally hackers support open source because well, they want to support it.
I think one is naive to think that the new Google OS will never get virus or malware attacks - it's no different to Macs - they get virus', albeit significantly less than Windows. Of course, part of the reason Windows is vulnerable - is because most of the world uses it and its a close sourced system. So only a select number of people have access to a select section of code - and well, not everyone at MS is perfect - hence the reason that viruses can exist and exploit vulnerabilities.
Hopefully, the core aspect of the Google OS is able to sandox different sections of the kernel so pretty much sections are compartmentalized (sandboxed) and it is more effective at reducing the spread of any infections from one part of the system to another. The less reliance any section has on another - the harder it is for infections to spread - this is also true for application processing.
With that said - Google has some pretty some people working at it - so I am sure they are going to make this as safe as it can be. More so, its important to remember they have people who probably worked at Microsoft - and understand what has been effective and was doesn't work. So in this sense, they have a significant advantage.
I was reading somewhere that most of the viruses are created just because somebody say's it is impossible to attack our system.
I've yet to see a Mac virus in the wild since the introduction of OSX nearly 10 years ago, so I'm not sure what Marcello is talking about. I suspect that he, much like Schneier, is spouting off simply because they want to be heard.
We know NOTHING about this OS as of yet.
Digital Equipment Corp. founder Ken Olsen's 1977 quote, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home" or Bill Gates back in 1981 claiming that "a (computer) user should never need more than 640K of RAM." We know what happens when people claim "never."
Interesting point, Vijay. Some (hackers) might read Google's claim as a direct challenge.
Thats quite true Vijay.
Also I think if the solution for the virus adn malware problems is plugged in to the OS and is made rock solid, people will accept it against all odds.
Bruce Schneier is jsut headline grabbing. He's judging an operating system before anyone has really even had time to play with it.
From what I understand about Ooogle's OS - is that it's all about the browser. When was the last time anyone's browser got a virus or malware? - never. There might be a virus or malware on the user's computer that effects the browser, but not the browser it self. If the point of the OS is to load browser apps, then there is no need to download anything.
Anyone who understands how browsers and RIA's work, is that content only 'lives' as long as the current browser session lives - it's called permanence. Sure you have cookies n such but those are incredibly specific and sandboxed.
oh BTW, I've owned dozens of Apple Mac's since the first one in 1984 - I've never had a virus (well except for the one time I made one and tried to load it).
Bruce Schneier did not found BT. He founded Counterpane, which was bought by BT in 2005.
Imagine: every app lives in it's own sandbox (you can imagine it has it's own windows OS + browser) and inter-app communication is done using web technologies (HTTP). This is pretty safe and a model working in the wild internet pretty well. When you install virus-app (phishing?), you are installing it in it's own sandbox, so it can do a little of harm to other apps living in other sandboxes.
Schneier is wrong IMHO.
Hey RRW - one thing I am not sure that has been covered yet in this little battle of the OS - is the Intellectual Property aspect. Microsoft has long been fighting with Linux regarding intellectual property - I just cannot see in anyway, shape or form that they are going to let Google step-in and take the limelight.
To be honest - I see a lengthy legal battle looming between Google and Microsoft. Things may turn nasty?
This is good news.. I'm beginning to like big "G's" OS you know..
@Alan:
"From what I understand about Ooogle's OS - is that it's all about the browser. When was the last time anyone's browser got a virus or malware? - never."
It's all about the browser and online applications, doesn't mean the OS is just going to be a browser. Ever heard of a Browser Hijacking ? Buffer Overflows on Browsers? If it makes it past the browser it will live beyond the browser. And since it is a "browser OS" it would mean that the OS would be open for quite some time.
I think they were right to point out that no OS is invulnerable to attack?
As consumers we need to be informed and has the competition increase all the OS systems will improve and that is good news for us.
Josie
It is fairly easy to make a system that is much less vulnerable than existing OS-es:
1. provide a limited API from an application to the outside
world (sandbox every application)
2. only allow installs of software through Google servers
(just like Apple's app store)
3. build in a remote kill switch
Such a system would have major failure modes (people hacking the kill switch or impersonating Google's servers), but these could be way better protected than existing similarly major failure modes in 'open' systems such as Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
Big questions for such a solution would be:
- whether the public would accept such a model. I think it will.
- how large that API would have to be. Google could start at "no API, except for what Chrome supplies (i.e: cookies, local SQLite databases, mouse & display).
Have Google really claimed that there new OS will be virus proof? I don't think so. I've read the blog post. It says "..users 'dont' have to deal with virus..". Think about it. "Don't", not "Never". You don't have to be a lawyer to get that.
In 1977, Ken Olsen, CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation, said, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
Let's try and be positive.
Alan - and Google aren't headline grabbing by making security claims about an OS (which we would dismiss if they came from Microsoft, but trust because we seem to have blind faith in Google's abilities).
The OS appears to be based on WebKit over a Linux kernel - which is not quite a fundamental redesign of the operating system from the ground up, although it does sound like a good basis for a light-weight web focused OS - it sounds similar to Palm's WebOS. But we do know that both the Linux kernel and WebKit have had security fixes.
Sounds like Microsoft may have paid this guy off. The problem with Microsoft is that, for web-browsing, it is a horrible OS, susceptible to ongoing smitfraud-type viruses that take complete control of your computer. Google's decision to come out with an OS makes me very happy! Microsoft is long in the tooth and it's about time we have some real competitors. Google is fresh, new, innovative and fun. Microsoft has lost it, the company is destroying itself from the inside and continues to put out crappy OSs that keep getting worse. For application development I'm sticking with Windows. For the web, it's Google Chrome! I can't wait! I'm going to install it on all of my family's computers!
@Jim
Mac users note new computer virus
Back in the day (think MS-DOS), operating systems were islands. Their computers may have been connected to networks, but not the OSes.
Soon, even though nearly every computer was connected, they all still ran operating systems born in an era (and with a mentality) of operating a single system (i.e. the computer the OS was installed on), and not with the paradigm of running a computer that is a component of a much larger system of connected computers.
Consequently, malware rose to take advantage of the short sightedness -- not just of coding, but of design.
Third parties saw the opportunity and made a buck selling antivirus software.
Microsoft, Apple, etc. responded by having their OSes contact the mother ship on a regular basis for self healing.
Still, none of that is an operating system that realizes it is loaded on a computer that is part of a much larger ecosystem.
Perhaps (and I don't know this is true at all), that is what Google intends for Chrome.
If so, then Google's malware claims are not statements of how bulletproof the OS is once installed, rather claims of how the OS is designed as a software network to combat malware threats.
Conceptually, if the OS on a single computer is a component of a larger, connected environment, then the environment can come to the aid of a component under distress.
Rats, I wish I could say this better.
How about this: computer C comes under attack. The mothership learns, adapts, and defends computer C, and when computers A and B are challenged, they are already defended by the "updates" uploaded to them from the mother ship.
That's just one of several scenarios possible if an OS is as connected as the hardware is.
Anyway, whether or not Chrome is that kind of an OS, the real redesign of desktop OSes is that they have to be as able to be part of a community as they are running the single system they were installed on.
@Alastair Thanks, noted.
Careful know, we all know one day Google is going to rule the world. Perhaps even the entire universe!
Jiff
www.real-anonymity.pro.tc
Good to hear about an open source OS, which would have lesser amount of virus attacks. However we will have to wait and see whether the OS would get the attention as much as this news got.
So is the argument that Google making ridiculous claims is OK, because anyone with half a brain knows its crap?
I can't cosign on that.
Is it at all possible that what Google meant in the statement "so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates." is that all of these things will be handled by the OS behind the scenes without the need for user intervention. Come on experts! Get over yourselves and think a little
If anyone can do it, I bet its google... but I don't think anyone can do it...
I will be safer than most simply because no one will have it so no security breechers will focus on it.
Kinda like apple... (though I love my mac!)
noone will have it because Microsoft and Google seem to think that the key to success is just to get in each others games... Microsoft with bing and now google with chrome OS
I saw this site that looks at media coverage of stuff and presents all the sides... well it looks like there aren't a lot of sides that think this is going to work...
http://www.newsy.com/videos/google_gears_up_for_os
They have a clip from CNBC (which might be the first time I have ever watched CNBC) that says this is bad business
It's not about picking on google's semantics... this google annoucement is purely a giant marketing ploy. Look how much *talk* has it generated in the last 2 days !!!
a trimmed down linux kernel with a browser as a shell, wow,
what geniuses , what OS advancement .... really... wow!!!
Definitely an issue of semantics. I'm sure it will never be 100% immune to viruses or malware but take a look at Gmail.
Yea once in a blue moon a spam email slips past Gmail's spam box but it seriously takes spam almost completely out of day-to-day email use.
I imagine being a web-oriented OS it will have the same type of protection against malware that Gmail has against spam, basically the antivirus would be built in
Remember Google knows how to see truth using data. Spam free Gmail is one example. They can do a miracle with the OS also.
First, disclosure, I work for Intel on computer security--as such I have biases. Moreover, I haven't seen the specs of the system, and this is purely guess-work on my part.
The only way to make a system totally immune to viruses is to make it non-extensible. Many viruses are spread via social engineering, you ask the OS to load the virus onto your system (oh, you were expecting pictures of Anna Kournikova, maybe you got those too). Now, sandboxing and similar techniques can limit the effect of unintended downloads, but unless the system prevents you from saving the file, or prevents you from running programs you have saved, it will be possible to infect the system.
However, if they make a totally closed system, where the only program which can list or change the files on your computer is an app that comes from Google (or perhaps they don't keep the files on your computer at all--that's very Google-like), then they can make a system which is virus proof, at least under a fairly strict definition. It's no longer extensible, but it is virus-proof. (It doesn't get rid of all malware, social engineering will always work at some level, but it gets rid of a lot of it. If you go to a site and type in your credtt card information, you can still leak that information.)
Still, if you think of the computer as a tool for communication like a phone, that's not necessarily a bad solution. How many years did we have phones before we had viruses? All of them ... up until we started making our phones extensible like computers. Maybe going the other direction isn't so bad. How many people really want to "program" their computers?
Moreover, such a non-programmable appliance-like computer makes a lot of sense in the net-book market. All the intelligence is out on the web anyway. Your computer is really just a display device, especially if Google is hosting your files. They want a better service, they upgrade their web-site. Your computer [almost] never needs reprogrammed.
The only thing you can't do with that model is fix the software if it's broken, you have to wait for Google to do that. Of course, the last time I could fix the actual spreadsheet program (not the spreadsheet itself, but the program running it i.e. excel or 123 or visicalc) was never--maybe I could have if I used star-office of open office, but realistically never.
But, technically a virus-proof (not malware proof, but virus-proof) OS is possible, it just isn't a programmable computer any more. If you want to deny that's a real computer, fine. Most consumers won't care as long as they can send messages and photos and videos and do their taxes etc., especially if it just works.
What if google hosts the entire OS and all the programs it uses online?
Maybe some people are thinking too traditional or maybe I'm just stoned. Albeit no gamers or power-users will switch the average Joe would benefit immensely by a computer that logs into their OS online. And I bet they'd pay a monthly fee to boot. Google ISP coming down the pipes?
Well Oracle did the whole "unbreakable" thing years ago so it's probably as achievable as that.
It is wrong of Google to make such a claim - now the naive users out there will click on whatever they want, install whatever they want, and be vulnerable to all sorts of social engineering because they "don't have to deal with malware and viruses". And, as for not having to "deal with security updates", I have a problem with Google deciding that Chrome updates occur silently, without user interaction or user permission and with no way for the user to turn notification on. If Microsoft did that there would be screaming from the rooftops.
Schneier is a genius, a bit of doubt. He is absolutely correct there is no way out for Google's operating system will be completely safe.
There may be a virus or malicious software in the user's computer browser, but it is not self-browser. If the point of the operating system loader application services, then there is no need to download anything
The only way to compute safely is to use a secure operating system with a well configured firewall AND to connect to the web as little as possible.
So Google cannot get there.
Just my opinion, but I think your 'No' should be 'No' and your 'Yes' be 'Yes'. If you say "no susceptibility", it should mean 'No' susceptibility, not probably, not mostly, not maybe, but No.
I bet all of the security software companies that have partnered with Google over the years were thrilled to hear this quote. Clearly, their marketing speak was taken literally when it should have been dismissed as the hyperbole it was.