Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Security IT

Zero Day Hole In Google Desktop 113

Posted by Zonk
from the please-stop-the-internet-from-leaking dept.
40by40 writes "A Web application security specialist has figured out a way to launch man-in-the-middle attacks against a computer with a fully patched Google Desktop installed. With knowledge of the Google Desktop security model (a combination of one-time tokens, iFrames and JavaScript), hacker Robert Hansen figured out a way to sit between a target launching a Google search query and manipulate the search results to take control of other programs on the desktop. From the article: 'This should drive home the point that deep integration between the desktop and the web is not a good idea, without tremendous thought put into the security model. As Google's site is unencrypted, and they place their content that can run executables on their site, it can be subverted by an attacker," Hansen warns. Hansen's advisory comes just days after a Chris Soghoian's exposé of a similar man-in-the-middle attack scenario against a remote vulnerability in the upgrade mechanism used by a number of commercial Firefox extensions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zero Day Hole In Google Desktop

Comments Filter:
  • Google should stop screwing around and just bite the bullet: develop your own operating system based on Linux and get it over with. Windows Vista is down, kick them in the nuts when you can!
    • by ajanp (1083247) on Friday June 01, 2007 @05:55PM (#19358313)
      I can see it now... A future where mankind lives in a free and secure society where we all live together in bliss running our favorite open-source customized version of the iGOOGLE operating system that checks our mail, orders our groceries, and feeds the cat without any human interaction.
    • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:01PM (#19358381) Homepage Journal

      develop your own operating system based on Linux and get it over with.

      No offense to Linux, but I think that would offend Google's sense of style. Unix-style OSes are great when you need low-level access to the hardware (e.g. GoogleFS), but don't infer any sort of inherent advantage in the desktop arena. In fact, the classic Unix design is very desktop unfriendly, which is why all kinds of user-friendly packages like automounter have been created.

      Given the number of Ph.D. brainiacs Google has their hands on, I would expect them to create a new OS from the ground up that is more focused on the issues of dealing with the web and network in general. e.g. If it can be coded to avoid buffer overflow situations, that would be a great start. Greater focus on caching services and integrated URL handling might also be things you would see more of. Unicode everything rather than dealing with different text formats. (Incoming formats would need to be converted before they could be used.) Overall minimalist design. i.e. Don't include anything that isn't absolutely necessary to getting the job done. (Compare: The number of features on Google homepage to the number of features on the average Linux desktop.)

      I will happily eat crow if Google ever produces a Linux desktop, but gut instinct says that they won't. So don't get your hopes up.
      • by aichpvee (631243)
        My Linux desktop has like 3 buttons, the pager, and a clock on it. What's your point? I agree we won't likely see a Google Linux distribution, but not for the reasons you stated.
        • by bberens (965711)
          There's already a Google operating system. What's running the Google enterprise appliances? Plus it's well known they have their own linux distro used only within the Goog.
          • by compro01 (777531)
            i was fairly certain they use redhat with some custom software running on that.
          • by xdotx (966421)
            Reportedly, they indeed have many. They don't just have their own distro; apparently they have internal, customized versions of MOST of the main distros. Don't worry, they send all (or most) bug reports, fixes, etc back to the main branch.
      • by Colin Smith (2679)

        In fact, the classic Unix design is very desktop unfriendly.
        Unix design has nothing to do with good/bad desktop. c.f. NeXT, OSX. The desktop apps could treat devices as raw block devices if they wanted, no file system mount semantics to worry about.

         
      • by poopdeville (841677) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:35PM (#19358731)
        In fact, the classic Unix design is very desktop unfriendly, which is why all kinds of user-friendly packages like automounter have been created.

        Your point is pretty vacuous. The user-friendly packages already exist, and as OS X and Ubuntu (as a Linux example) show, can be used to great effect.

        But you're right. Google won't produce a Linux desktop. They'll probably use a BSD variant, should they ever produce a desktop at all.
      • Plan 9? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        new OS from the ground up that is more focused on the issues of dealing with the web and network in general


        Plan 9?
      • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:18PM (#19359153) Homepage Journal
        Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X [apple.com].

        Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

        Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

        The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System [amazon.com]
        Design of the UNIX Operating System [amazon.com]
        Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach [amazon.com]
        UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers [amazon.com]
        Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach [amazon.com]
        Solaris Internals [amazon.com]


        The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).
        • armchair OS designer's reading list

          That's great. When you graduate beyond armchair reading, perhaps you might consider getting out of your chair and learning about actually designing an Operating System [osdev.org]? It's a very rewarding experience and teaches one about all the wonderful spagetti and legacy problems inherent in designs like Unix. It even shows how the greater resources present in modern computers can be utilized to reduce or eliminate the problems exhibited by previous OSes.
          • ... as a pebble disturbs the stillness of the pond? [Ti Kwan Leep] [webguys.com]

            A programmer who is too proud to think about how other people solved the problem they're looking at is much more likely to invent a wheel with some number of road-contact surfaces "n" where n > 1.

            UNIX has survived (indeed thrives) as a result of a number of major refactoring efforts, directed not only at improving the internal architecture, but even the underlying abstractions. Consider Mach and the microkernel revolution, which re
            • Let me spell it out for you:

              * POSIX is Broken. With a capital B. The mere availability of it creates buffer overflows.
              * The wonderful design abstractions of OS X are pulled from another complete redesign: Into ObjectiveC
              * Mach is a very, very, very bad production kernel that Apple has had the displeasure of trying to hack into something that works well. Absolutely no one refactored their kernels around the Mach design, because it was slower than molasses running uphill in January. That wasn't a core problem
              • You wrote:

                Let me spell it out for you

                Well, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you haven't spelled anything out. In fact, you've accidentally helped me develop my case. We'll get to that in a moment, but first let me mention that interlocking design elements of the CPU, compilers, and programing languages combine to make buffer overflows possible.

                To the extent that portions of POSIX are specified in terms of C or assume C language features, and to the extent that such dependencies upon the

                • Make your case? You're too funny. :-)

                  1. You don't seem to understand that one has to use POSIX to create a hole. The mere presence isn't necessarily enough.

                  2. Win32 is broken for the same reason that POSIX is. Lots of unchecked buffers all over creation.

                  3. He finally gets it! Yes, Java and other high-level languages provide "secure execution environments with no direct access to memory".

                  4. The Java environment pushes the Unix system out of the way. If you're going to write everything in Java, there's no rea
        • by pschmied (5648)
          That is an excellent collection of reading material.

          I periodically hear arguments like that of the original poster. They are mostly misinformed. It has taken Microsoft a very long time and vast fortunes to get their OS to a point where it competes with the UNIX architecture (for varying measures of 'compete').

          Now, yes, Google probably has loads of people smart enough to do original OS research. In fact, it's obvious that they've done some pretty fundamental computer science work already. However, they a
      • Have you seen gears.google.com? It's technology that lets you run web apps offline. Basically, this gets rid of one of the biggest complaints about web apps like google spreadsheet and docs. I think technology like this will eventually put the nail in the coffin for a large class of desktop-only apps.
      • by a.d.trick (894813)

        Compare: The number of features on Google homepage to the number of features on the average Linux desktop

        A bad metaphor is like a leaky screwdriver. Seriously, there are significant differences between how those two are used. Google's homepage *might* be comparable to something like the Beagle UI, in which case I think Beagle beats Google (slightly) for the minimalism award.

      • by gnuman99 (746007) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @12:43AM (#19360967)
        Why on this Earth would Google want an OS?? They already have it - it is called "The Browser". That's what they use to make money. They may want to extend its usage, but I doubt that Google will ever want to deal with the "desktop" in the same way as Microsoft, Apple or Linux community.

        Google is about control. They want to control your information for their own profit. They show it again and again. That's how they make money. The more targeted the ads, the more money they can make. The only competitor I think they may have here is Amazon, but that only deals with your book preferences. Google wants your wants so they can sell something from one of their customers.

        Thus it is NOT in the interest of Google to make a desktop. They are not in the business of making software like MS or Apple or GNU or even IBM. They are in business to manage information about you and me. Their "free" solutions are just there so you can give them more info about yourself.

        Hope that is clear enough.
        • Actually, I agree with you 100%. I'm just tired of hearing about Linux-based GoogleOS, so I figured I'd point out that if Google *did* implement a Desktop OS, it probably wouldn't be Unix. ;-)
      • by tokul (682258)
        Ph.D. brainiac won't start creating new OS from the scratch, when there are working free alternatives. On new OS he or she will have to deal all hardware and software issues instead of dealing only with network and web.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:01PM (#19358387)
      GoOSE:
      GOoogle Operating System Environment

      Gotta teach those penguins a lesson sometime...
    • while i am sure it would be nice, people who use linux are more likely to look at google as a threat, and people who don't use linux probably wont re-install their operating system just because google comes out with their own version... look how much work they need to put into just getting people to use the image and other various searches they have,
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hucko (998827)
      I think it would better to be based on Plan 9. But no one talks it anymore. Is development still continuing?
    • by fatalfury (934087)
      Personally, I'm waiting for Goobuntu.

      Oh, I kid.
    • by socz (1057222)
      I think google has gone about this all wrong, and you guys too! Why not use a BSD system, like FreeBSD? You see, why worry about people finding holes in YOUR system, when they'll be busy finding holes in others? Then, google can just nicely bolt on their software and voila! But seriously, if you're going to run a desktop, and then if you're going to implement any sort of OS, why not use a BSD OS? I've used linux and bsd systems, and have consistently found that bsd's share interoperability across their pac
  • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Friday June 01, 2007 @05:59PM (#19358347) Homepage Journal
    This should drive home the point that connections should flow over encrypted tunnels whenever possible, to reduce the ease of performing man in the middle attacks. If this session flowed over an SSL style connection, the man in the middle would first need to figure out how to get into that session. That strategy seriously reduces the places where malicious code can exist "in the middle". Don't throw the baby (rich client interaction with services in the cloud) out with the bathwater.
    • by bendodge (998616)
      And Google should automatically reroute http://mail.google.com/ [google.com] to https://mail.google.com./ [mail.google.com] I get very tired of manually typing the https:/// [https] and it seems like a no-brainer. (yeah, there's always a special case, so just add an explicit option not to.)
      • by notclive (1091063)
        If you use firefox you could use the better gmail extension it has an option to force https http://lifehacker.com/software/gmail/lifehacker-co de-better-gmail-firefox-extension-251923.php [lifehacker.com]
        • by Threni (635302)
          > If you use firefox you could use the better gmail extension it has an option to force https

          But then I'm trusting the extension author too. Do you know him? I don't.
      • If you're a Mozilla user, try the CustomiseGoogle extension. Automatic redirection to https:/// [https] for multiple sites (mail, calendar, reader, etc, etc) so even if someone sends you an insecure link you'll still get the SSL site.
      • by fatalfury (934087)
        http://mail.google.com as well as http://gmail.com already automatically redirect to https://

        Update your bookmarks?
        • by bendodge (998616)
          I just tried entering "mail.google.com" into the Firefox address bar, and it doesn't redirect...
          • by fatalfury (934087)
            Well, for me on WinXP...
            Opera 9.21 - redirects
            Firefox 2.0.0.4 - redirects
            IE7 - redirects

            Clear your cache? I'm not really sure what the problem is. I have been redirected to https going back quite a while now. No special hosts file or extensions or anything. And the only firewall I have is on my router, and there's nothing special there either.
    • by bakuun (976228)

      This should drive home the point that connections should flow over encrypted tunnels whenever possible, to reduce the ease of performing man in the middle attacks. If this session flowed over an SSL style connection, the man in the middle would first need to figure out how to get into that session. That strategy seriously reduces the places where malicious code can exist "in the middle". Don't throw the baby (rich client interaction with services in the cloud) out with the bathwater.

      However, that comes at a computational cost. CPU time will have to be spent on encryption/decryption, both on the client and on the servers in Google's data centers. I am not saying that it wouldn't be a good idea, but a safe version which does not rely on encrypted tunnels might be more efficient.

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:00PM (#19358365) Homepage

    By now, everybody developing browser components should know that you do not provide functions which can execute arbitrary programs.

    Usually, it's Microsoft doing this, with Outlook, IE, Office, etc. launching other applications. This is the source of most of the vulnerabilities involving web browsing. Now we have Google competing to offer similar security holes.

    • by EraserMouseMan (847479) on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:22PM (#19359189)
      We'd better get used to Google becoming the butt of jokes usually aimed at ActiveX. Google Gears, Google Desktop, Google whatever. We now reaize that the developers that develop these technologies simply get traded between the big 3 (Google, MS, Yahoo) and others.

      Are we all finally realizing that Google writes insecure apps just like ever other software development company that is made up of humans?
      • by BeanThere (28381)
        Ah, the old fallacy that "secure" is a binary value, i.e. that something is either secure or not, and the false conclusion that all apps that aren't 100% secure are all equally insecure.
    • True. Also, a program expanded in functionalities to do more tasks than it was initially designed for is a major source of software bugs.
    • by WalterGR (106787) on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:49PM (#19359411) Homepage

      you do not provide functions which can execute arbitrary programs.... This is the source of most of the vulnerabilities involving web browsing. Now we have Google competing to offer similar security holes.

      Firefox offers the exact same mechanism. Firefox extensions can contain (and run) executable code. (See below.)

      As the Greasemokey security vulnerability [oreillynet.com] demonstrated, web pages can "script" Firefox extensions.

      ActiveX = executable code + scripting from the web browser. Firefox extensions introduce the same risks as ActiveX.

      Take for instance FoxyTunes [mozilla.org], which is listed on the Recommended Add-ons [mozilla.org] page. Download the XPI file, rename it to ZIP. Open it in WinZip or whatever. You'll notice several files:

      • FoxyTunes.dll
      • FoxyTunes.dll.linux
      • FoxyTunes.dll.mac
      • FoxyTunesBonobo.so.file

      DLL files are executable code on Windows. I'm assuming the *.linux and *.mac are similar. SO files are executable code under Linux, not sure why it has .file after it. I'm sure there are more extensions with executable code, that was just the first I looked at. Look for any extension that integrates with external software - almost always there will be a DLL or EXE.

  • Logical (Score:1, Redundant)

    by El Lobo (994537)
    Firefox is getting more popular--> the number of attacks is rising

    Google apps are getting more popular--> Ditto

    When the popularity of a software approach a critical mass, the probability of exploits appearing approachs 1.

  • Easily solved (Score:5, Informative)

    by tedhiltonhead (654502) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:05PM (#19358413)
    It sounds like this takes advantage of the "Google Integration" feature, where the Google Desktop software adds a link to your Google search results page. I found his explanation rather unclear, but it sounds like you can avoid this by going into Google Desktop's preferences, then the Display tab, then un-checking the last checkbox, "Show Desktop Search results on Google Web Search result pages".

    I've always thought that was a scary idea anyway, since my desktop content should be in a clearly-partitioned security domain from Web content.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:06PM (#19358425) Journal
    Basic premise of the whole scheme sketched out in the article seems to be having a man in the middle. May be an evil twin router offering network connection near a coffee shop or a malicious lap top in an airport faking an "infrastructure mode" SSID in ad-hoc mode or something like that.

    Once you are compromised this way the attack tries to take advantage of cross scripting vulnerabilities in a browser to run code in the compromised machine. I am not sure if there is anything unique to Google Desktop here. Could the same attack take advantage of the numerous ActiveX vulnerabilities?

    Is the "security expert" trying to get more mileage by listing each exploitable hole of a man-in-the-middle attack as a separate discovery?

    • by brennz (715237)
      I think the premise of the article is rather stupid in fact.

      It is not Google's job to provide a secure channel.

      I guess when I do a MITM attack to capture login prompts and transparently proxy that is google's problem also?
      Or when I resolve DNS queries to my own box, that is likewise google at fault?

      Lol.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If the "login prompts" aren't being done over SSL, then yes.
      • by CrazyBrett (233858) on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:27PM (#19359237)
        It is not Google's job to provide a secure channel.

        Yes, it is. If they're exchanging data between their desktop app and their web service, they need to do encryption and key verification to make sure the pipe isn't compromised. Stuff outside of that (like local keyloggers) is your concern, or someone else's. But between their two endpoints, they need to secure the channel.
      • by naasking (94116) <naasking AT gmail DOT com> on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:54PM (#19359449) Homepage
        I guess when I do a MITM attack to capture login prompts and transparently proxy that is google's problem also?
        Or when I resolve DNS queries to my own box, that is likewise google at fault?


        Don't be daft, SSL was created to prevent exactly these attacks, so why isn't it being used? Why does the Google toolbar submit all your potentially authority-bearing https urls to their anti-spam service in clear text? As good as Google is in certain areas, they're absolutely horrid when it comes to basic security measures.
        • by kcurrie (4116)
          > Don't be daft, SSL was created to prevent exactly these attacks, so why isn't it being used?

          Because it takes lotsa CPU or dedicated SSL engines to encrypt that many connections.

        • by trifish (826353)
          SSL was created to prevent exactly these attacks, so why isn't it being used?

          Easy one. Because the overall CPU load in the data centers goes up dramatically.
    • by qbwiz (87077) * <john&baumanfamily,com> on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:10PM (#19359081) Homepage
      I think that ActiveX components are signed/named, so there wouldn't be as much of a problem with them. Don't quote me on that, though.
  • by crymeph0 (682581) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:09PM (#19358463)
    How does one stop Google desktop from indexing executables? When I open the Google Desktop preferences, exe files aren't even listed as something I can index, but search for an executable like hypertrm.exe on Google desktop, and it shows up anyway, which is the 'meat' of this vulnerability.
  • Google size issues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ushering05401 (1086795) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:10PM (#19358469) Journal
    Anyone want to bet that this is the beginning of a little landslide?

    I wish the Google team all the best in dealing with this issue... but I am scratching my head at the speed with which they are attempting to diversify their offerings.

    Google did not become a dominant force overnight. They fought battles, learned lessons, and refined/defined search capabilities for the entire world. Why have they been shooting off in a dozen different directions? Is there any way that even they can stay on top of all the little details considering the number of immature products they are floating?

    Anyhow, the next couple of days will go a long way towards showing exactly how far the Google team needs to go before I trust them on my desktop. Here's hoping they prove to have the response time/customer centric attitude that made them my preferred search provider.

    Regards.
  • by The Clockwork Troll (655321) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:14PM (#19358519) Journal

    This should drive home the point that deep integration between the desktop and the web is not a good idea, without tremendous thought put into the security model.

    "Tremendous thought" is a weaker notion than transparency, public scrutiny, or even rigorous proof, which are really what's required.

    Everything else is just hope; hide and seek.

    Hopefully Google can learn and set an example here.

  • installers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ruffles321 (1023357) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:15PM (#19358537)
    this is even more of a problem since more and more installers like Irfanview's or Adobe's include Google Desktop (and/or toolbar) and there is no way to skip them when doing automated installs... what a sick trend.
    • erm, when I installed Irfanview I had the option of not installing google desktop
      • how about when your installing it silently with switches on 100 machines? no switch for "skip google".
        • This is indeed really sick. Have you contacted the guy who created IrfanView?
          • Google's apps are making their way into more and more installers, so I think better way would be adding a switch to the installer. Like "No, I don't want anything except the main app" and that's not Irfanview author's job.
            • by evilneko (799129)
              Er, what? His app, his installer, his choice whether or not to provide such a switch.
  • FUD (Score:1, Troll)

    by umbrellasd (876984)

    'This should drive home the point that deep integration between the desktop and the web is not a good idea, without tremendous thought put into the security model. As Google's site is unencrypted, and they place their content that can run executables on their site, it can be subverted by an attacker," Hansen warns.

    This guy is probably funded by M$. I mean, come on. Hello, Mr. FUD. You want to see dangerous deep integration? Internet Explorer. Durr. I have a news flash for this genius. Pretty much

  • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:28PM (#19358667)
    Did the industry and Google learn nothing from the mistakes Microsoft made?

    Even MS has done a 180 and with Vista broke all the internal/external links that made XP/ActiveX/IE such a mess. So if MS is smart enough to learn from their mistakes you would thing a company like Google would not go out of their way to emulate the same bad security ideas.

    Is it just me, or is Google racing to be the next big evil? Gmail scanning, search data compiling, Firefox reporting, desktop document reporting, and now making really stupid software design decisions?
    • by LO0G (606364) on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:11PM (#19359089)
      The problem is that for some people, functionality trumps security every time. It's unfortunate, but true.

      Sometime around 2002ish, Microsoft learned (the hard way) that functionality can NEVER trump security, and they've spent the better part of the past 5 years working on fixing the mistakes they made back in the 1990s (when functionality trumped security). You can see the fruits of that in their most recent offerings (IIS6 has had no exploitable holes in the 4 years it's been available, Vista, for all of its compatibility problems has already been shown to be dramatically better than XP was security-wise).

      Until all the vendors "get it" and realize that security should win, stuff like this is going to continue to happen.
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:35PM (#19358725)
    It's the phrase which springs to mind with "web 2.0" applications. You have an exposed API on both sides, the client and the server.
     
  • business as usual (Score:4, Interesting)

    by siddesu (698447) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:49PM (#19358873)
    installing third-party applications that connect to someplace, download something, and do something on on your machine, and being exposed when those applications are shown to have bugs is news how?

    the google engineers aren't magicians. when they develop features, they do so under tight schedule, and make mistakes, especially those hired to code (as opposed to do PR). the only reason there haven't been more problems discovered is likely the fact that they don't distribute much software.

    besides, google's main goal isn't promoting security. their primary goal is to hookup lotsa people -- and in their case, that means to deliver applications with lotsa features quickly, because people are hooked on the features, the competition ain't sleeping, and that first-comer advantage matters.

    does that remind you of another company? it should, because all of them successful companies ain't that much different at all ;)
  • by isnoop (239143) on Friday June 01, 2007 @06:55PM (#19358925) Homepage
    Google is nice enough to offer SSL for most of its services these days. It would make a lot of sense for them to round out their secure offerings with an SSL search as well.

    Right now, any request to an encrypted Google search URL redirects you to www.google.com.
  • Just how prevalent are these men who are in the middle? I've yet to hear about an actual attacker using this strategy. Is that because the middle men are pretty much undetectable and many compromises happen without the user noticing that he didn't do anything 'wrong?' The crackers seem to have an easy enough time phishing their way into your data or doing social engineering to land an executable on your machine. It seems like it's much harder to set yourself up as this man in the middle than it is to fi
  • Is it just me (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Deliveranc3 (629997)
    Robert Hansen

    Major U.S. software companies should really consider nuking Scandinavia?
  • Tossing stuff out to users with security holes is something that has earned Microsoft a reputation they'd rather not have. And this kind of bad Microsoft practice is certainly something Google would not want to emulate. So Google had better nip this in the bud quickly, especially as they continue to roll out new products at a rapid pace.

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.

Working...