Google Thinks the Public Sector Can Do Better Than Microsoft's 'Security Failures' (theverge.com) 27
An anonymous reader shares a report: Google is pouncing on Microsoft's weathered enterprise security reputation by pitching its services to government institutions. Pointing to a recent report from the US Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) that found that Microsoft's security woes are the result of the company "deprioritizing" enterprise security, Google says it can help. The company's pitch isn't quite as direct as Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella saying he made Google dance, but it's spicy all the same. Repeatedly referring to Microsoft as "the vendor" throughout its blog post on Monday, Google says the CSRB "showed that lack of a strong commitment to security creates preventable errors and serious breaches." Platforms, it added, "have a responsibility" to hold to strong security practices. And of course, who is more responsible than Google?
Reliable sources (Score:3)
"Large Corporation Says That Major Competitor's Product Is No Good!"
Re: (Score:2)
Large corporation is right. Their own offerein is better, but not flawless either. But Microsoft has screwed up to an unimaginable degree this time and they continue to screw up on that level. They really have gotten too greedy. Think Boeing, but a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Both these companies are racing to see who can hit rock-bottom in terms of quality first.
UniSuper called... (Score:5, Informative)
and would like to remind people that Google accidentally deleted their entire infrastructure.
I mean, that's secure: everything was deleted!
Re: (Score:1)
Google is focused on the cutting edge, flashy stuff. Not boring and stable. The biggest thing Windows has going for it is 10 years of support. The next biggest thing is that everybody is familiar with Microsoft. John Q. Public is going would be more likely to complain about
Re: (Score:2)
That was user error, not a security flaw.
When was the last time that a Google product was mass exploited? Why don't we hear about ransomware on Android phones or Chromebooks all the time like we do with Windows?
Any way you look at it, Google is better at security than Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
That is actually unclear. And availability _is_ a security property. Sure, Microsoft;s bumbling, half-assed and clueless attempts at security are atrocious and nobody in their right mind would buy any services from them or rely on their OS. The Emperor does not get more naked that he currently is. But Google is not perfect either and that needs to be kept in mind.
Google: Ultimate Security (Score:3, Interesting)
No data is more secure than data that has been accidentally wiped from your only cloud storage provider!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I suppose the bright side was that no unauthorized users had access to UniSuper's data. Also unavailable to any authorized users, but hey, small price to pay for security...
And.. who is more responsible than Google? (Score:3)
Linus Torvalds, perhaps?
I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here...
Security (Score:2)
Avoid the same vendor (Score:2)
Says the corporation that supplies "operating systems, email, office software" and the standard online-security check-up. Maybe they can brag about their online-security track record but criticizing a broad product mix is shooting themselves in the foot.
Well, Google security is massively better... (Score:2)
... but occasionally they delete customers by accident and cannot recover them. Pick your poison or go to alternatives that are actually better. None of the large vendors are. They all only care about the bottom line, not about their customers. Microsoft is just a little more inept at estimating where the red line is. Would all be a lot less of a problem if we had software and cloud liability, but we effectively do not.
Google's fantastic (Score:2)
... until one day, some random thought occurs to their board, and they terminate the entire project.
Google has a long history of terminating functioning software-- I wouldn't rely on them for anything that I couldn't replace easily.
excuse me Ladies, but... (Score:2)
Someone inside needs to grab the steering wheel here.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the "that is not our core capability, so outsource it"-concept?
It is loved so much by MBA-types, but it results in a dependency, with costs and managerial headaches regarding cost-control and it only takes one generation to get rid of the extra knowledge and now it takes 3 or 4 times the cost of getting that knowledge back, as it turns out that knowledge was either needed to improve your product or was a direction that makes the company relevant for years instead of focusing on a specialism t
Re: (Score:2)
You're describing "outsourcing your brain".
Management loves to do it. If "my brain don't work"... fire your brain, and hire a new one, while keeping one's position on the ladder.
The monoculture of MBA's who think the only metric is cutting costs leads to the monoculture of mandating and using only MS, VMWare, and Cisco.
So now you're dependent on those co's who all have brought their weaknesses to you. All have been hacked in recent months and years. I keep thinking about that Star Wars
Re: (Score:1)
How many man-hours would it take? How many lines of code? How much experience with hardening software from Ring-0 all the way up to user land would need to be developed internally? How much document interoperability will need to be developed to communicate effectively with the public? Do you want the entire government in
Re: (Score:2)
Control of one's destiny. Undoing dependence on others.
Anyone who's made the management decision to run their own servers knows what I'm talking about.
So you made the case that Goog, Amzn, MS, etc, is based on opensource software. They add value (presumably) and rent it back to the Gov. So why doesn't the Gov just cut out the middleman and do it themselves? Start with securing the networks.
I'm thinking more about the military. They are foolish to let others control them.
Sun Tzu would approve.
Re: (Score:1)
The more civilian and administrative branches of government are subject to more scrutiny. Recently, the voters have been leaning more and more towards privatization of public resources, that is to put a middleman in place where there was none before.
Making the management decision to run their own servers is basic business. As a business grows, they can often reduce costs by develo
Re: (Score:2)
This is basic Sun Tzu stuff.
So, "golden pathway to success" is to be in control to a large extent. There are practical limitations, and some adherence to historical ideas.. but the strategy and direction of the organization must be owned in-house, proprietary knowledge. Otherwise you aren't steering your own ship... that would be pointless
Re: (Score:1)
You're speaking to me, at current. Your "voice" is speaking on an old discussion topic, on a niche website. No matter how many Sun Tzu quotes you throw at me, it is not going to change the strategy and direction, or otherwise motivate the American populace to support taxation in the goal of building a rival to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I subscribe to Sun Tzu wisdom and have built a proprietary network, and tools, all based on open source and smothered in my own special sauce. So I take my own counsel, and it's available to my clients, and I feel I'm can lecture whomever is listening.. I can defend this hill.