Chrome OS Doesn't Trust Apps Or Users

holy_calamity writes "Google's Chrome OS chiefs explain in Technology Review how most of the web-only OS's features flow from changing one core assumption of previous operating system designs. 'Operating systems today are centered on the idea that applications can be trusted to modify the system, and that users can be trusted to install applications that are trustworthy,' says Google VP Sundar Pichai. Chrome doesn't trust applications, or users — and neither can modify the system. Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."

Printable version

[asvravi]

Link to the printable version - skips the two overly obnoxious ads that get in the way before you could read the article.
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=26882 [technologyreview.com]

Re:Wait, what?

[42forty-two42]

The headline's a bit misleading. Users _can_ replace the OS. However, the BIOS will check signatures on the OS, and offer to restore from a known-good backup on boot (without destroying user data). This ensures that if the OS is infected by a virus or something, it's very, very easy to restore.
There are specific points in the design docs [chromium.org] where they make it clear that they do want to support advanced users installing their own OS, to the extent that that does not cause trouble for less advanced users.

Re:Wait, what?

[mrsteveman1]

MORE closed? No, because Google has always said that users could get into the core os if they wanted to without resorting to exploits and hacking.

Re:Google wants to out-evil Apple?!

[Anonymous Coward]

ChromeOS is not a PC or tablet. It's designed to use "cloud" applications only.

Re:A little problem...

[SashaMan]

Fine, then go make your modifications to the open source Chromium project and install whatever the hell you want on it.

And for those comparing this to Apple's lockdown, that's ridiculous - Apple actively tries to prevent you from jailbreaking, while anyone can mod the Chrome OS.

The fact is the vast, vast majority of users can NOT be trusted to install software, and for those that can, fine, mod the OS and go ahead.

Re:Wait, what?

[gstoddart]

From TFA:

With a reliance on constant connectivity and no hard drive, a Chrome notebook could be described as an overgrown smart phone with a keyboard.

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

This may not be the device for you, but it may be the device for a lot of people. It's worth pointing out that over half a million people buy smartphones every day that also walk away from a mountain of desktop-computer annoyances.

Hey, I'm all about being able to buy and run whatever device you like. I'm just trying to make sense of this device as it's described -- and, I was responding to the first-post which asked if it was more locked down than Apple's stuff.

From the sounds of it, it's markedly more locked down than my iPad. I can absolutely see this being good for many things. Not sure I'd want one, but it's also a prototype -- so it's a little premature to say anything about it.

Google security...

[metrometro]

Yeah, but they still can't get HTTPS on their own damn cloud products. Here's a quick look at Google's security beyond the local device:

I turn on my laptop, turn on my VPN, surf. In the process I got owned by my buddy running Firesheep. Here's how:

Laptop has tabs open.
Wifi connects before VPN kicks in.
Chrome tries to refresh a tab containing a PUBLIC Google Doc where I was not logged in, and Chrome sends out my authentication without HTTPS on it.
Firesheep grabbed the Google account, which is my Reset password account for everything else. Owned.

Later we learned that Chrome's sync bookmarks tool also sends your Google account authentication without HTTPS. All the time.

So if you're on an open network, Google is spamming your authentication to anyone who's listening, because they can't get their shit together to use HTTPS when they authenticate.

So, yeah. Security. Good job.

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

TFA is not merely "mistaken", it is either the product of gross ignorance of the subject matter or deliberate deception.

Chrome OS does not require constant connectivity, contrary to what TFA claims. It does everything through the Chrome browser, of course, and so has requirements that are pretty similar to that -- browser based applications will require network connection to the extent that they don't take advantage of the features of HTML5 and other technologies implemented in the Chrome browser for the specific purpose of enabling offline web applications.

And, yes, the Cr-48 at least has no hard drive but not no local storage: it uses an SSD for local storage. Applications can store information locally using the HMTL5 local storage APIs.

Re:Wait, what?

[3vi1]

>> "User data is there but programs need to be reinstalled to access it. System comes back squeaky clean, but everything needs to be changed to my personal liking." ...

That's a defect specific to Windows and its bloated registry. In the *nix world, all your settings are stored in your user data directory. All programs can be reinstalled from your distros repository with a single package manager command, and their old settings (as well as all your desktop settings) will be just as you left them.