Google Chrome OS (with a Linux kernel)...

Hi all

I guess everybodies is aware of the new Google Chrome OS based on a Linux Kernel...

If not:
Official Google Blog: Introducing the Google Chrome OS

I wrote my opinion about the Google's OS there:

Google Chrome OS: a Cloud Computing OS not saying his name!

What is your opinion about this announcement ?
A good news for Unix/Linux based system or... ?
And what about the security and privacy with a such OS ?

 

Let's wait and see. Mid 2010 is a year away ...
Mrk

 

Yah: very early days as yet.
Potentially very exciting.
as noted:

Agreed.
Will need a really really big EULA.

Really, not convinced re the safety and privacy of 'in the cloud' as yet; even though, granted, communications go through the cloud already and much privacy and related issues are/is exposed at the interfaces.

WWW currently scattered with articles and punditry re hackers , malware and in the cloud/browser OS interface concept.
Linux/Unix kernel hacking attempts may suddenly ramp up ??

Here is a 'few' comments:
http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/38021

 

When I heard new OS I first thought wow! somebody really wants to create a new os from the scratch then I read further.. ..saw then.. linux kernel and my thumbs went down... who needs a new distro from google? This really sounds superfluous. They would get my respect, if they really had tried to develop a completely new os.

 

I dont see the point in creating a totally new OS. when the linux and bsd kernal's already exist and are great platforms why reinvent the wheel?

 

You've got a good point there. OTOH, with ~500 different Linux distros already available, I don't see the need for a Google-centric thin client on steroids.

This might be OK for Tante Erna who just wants to read her email and type her shopping list, but I can't see anyone with any serious computing needs wanting to use Google's half-assed online applications and being dependent on an internet connection in order to have access to them.

I don't think Chrome OS is going to be any more of a success than the Chrome browser. Last information I saw about that was a user share of <1% in spite of all the hype as it was released.

 

OT: I think the <1% market share is referring to Linux. FWIW, both Net Applications and StatCounter place Google Chrome at 1.7-1.8%.

 

In that case I've done Chrome an injustice. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that it wasn't the Killer App of 2008.

 

The Chrome OS probably won't be a killer by itself but think of "death by a thousand cuts." Each little nick in MS's hide is a help as far as I'm concerned.

 

Is this OS free?
In my opinion,if this OS is popular in the world,many viruses will aim at this OS.Linux will be not securer than present Windows.

 

Competition is always good, just consider what we'd be paying for Intel CPUs if it wasn't for AMD.

I've always thought that if Apple were to sell a version of OSX that would run on non-Apple hardware that would really put some pressure on Microsoft.

I don't see Chrome OS, as described by Google, as being anything highly useful except for checking your email on a netbook while on vacation. I might be wrong, maybe not everyone is as sceptical of "in the cloud" computing as I am. OTOH, in the cloud no one can hear you scream.

 

Gee!! What an original thought!!

 

You mentioned opinion, so I can't ask you for an evidence-rich case. But just out of curiosity, why do you think so?
Mrk

 

My personal guess it that MS has a bot that automatically posts this canard every so often.

 

In my opinion,all viruses are interested in the OS which is used most.In the past,Windows OS was not taken aim by viruses,but more and more people used Windows,there were more and more viruses appearing.Some people wanted to get some benefit form other people's computers.So if Linux is used by more and more people,viruses which aim at Linux OS must appear.Now Windows has much experience about security and many Antivirus vonders have good production which suits Windows.But Linux hasn't.
So if viruses appeared,maybe Linux is not securer than Windows.

 

Hello,

You do realize that most of world's communication infrastructure works on Linux and UNIX and that getting those is much more lucrative than hacking your little desktop?

Second, you do realize that viruses are completely useless on Linux, due to its usage model? Hence, the linear translation of X viruses for X Windows usage equals X viruses for X Linux usage is wrong.

You do realize that Linux has root vs. user separation, no executable bit for newly created files by default (the so called umask), chroot, daily all-system updates from digitally signed repos ... You have no reason to ever execute a file that does not come from the vendor, unlike Windows where the wonders of the Web beckon.

Getting viruses on Linux is equal to getting viruses via Windows update.

As to executing crap on your own machine, anyone can do that. You can also spill acid onto your keyboard. Or strange yourself with a piano wire. There's no limit to human self-destructiveness.

Mrk

 

I am sorry I don't know those.I don't know Linux.I am sure what you said is reasonable .

But nothing is impossible (what adidas's advertisement said) .

I have a question.Is it real no virus can destroy Linux now?From what you said,I can see Linux is really strong and there are many functions preventing viruses.

 

It is very easy to destroy any operating system. I can cripple my Linux installation in 4 seconds if I need to with rm or dd commands. The question is, how big can the damage be if you don't have root permissions and want to cause harm.

Here's a virus for you - a simple shell script that runs rm or dd command and I'm not showing the exact command deliberately. Now, without root permissions, they will at most destroy the user's home directory, but the system will function.

Now, if you downloaded something like this off the Web, why would you run it? Even better, why provide the root password when running this script.

Lastly, you will have to make it executable first. So you have at least two steps that the user must do before harm can be made, execution and password.

Now, it begins with 1) going to a site 2) downloading content 3) deciding you want to run it without checking, reading the contents etc 4) making it executable 5) running it 6) providing password to help it along.

It's equal to take pistol, insert magazine, c o c k , safety pin off, aim into mouth, pull the trigger.

Cheers,
Mrk

 

What a coincidence; that's how the majority of infections occur on Windows and Macs as well.

 

Or, you could just:

1) go to a site
2) get unlucky, as the site attempts to exploit a remote code execution vulnerability in your browser or some plugin (and there have been loads of such vulnerabilities in many browsers and plugins across all operating systems) and then
3) malicious code runs without any user interaction, can do anything the user can do like wipe out the home folder or steal any data files in there, or saved passwords from the browser, etc, etc

That is, of course, the hard way. It's much easier to exploit the user. Which is how Windows is typically exploited, too. Actually, in Windows the infections happen by basically three methods of attack, of which two Linux is vulnerable to:
1) Attack against user stupidity, IOW, tell the user to execute crapware and they will, disabling all security in the process if they have the skill to do it. Most common method of attack. Brutally effective on any OS, assuming the same level of (in)competence as the average Windows user.
2) Attack against insecure default settings, IOW, exploit the fact that Windows and some Windows software have very stupid default settings that allow people to do crazy things without permission. This is getting rarer, as Windows defaults get better, for example, with UAC limiting what the default user can do. This is the only attack method that Linux is mostly immune to, since most decent distros have default settings that are pretty secure as compared to Windows defaults of old.
3) Attack against some software vulnerability, that is to say, an honest programming mistake instead of just intentionally stupid design. Lots of vulnerabilities in most software. Linux and software for Linux has had plenty of vulnerabilities that could have been exploited for all kinds of fun monkey business. Sure, quick updates help. Then again, Microsoft does patch things, too, and use automatic updates, but that doesn't stop users from running Windows XP SP1 unpatched for three years and wondering why they get infected by "crappy Windows."

Linux, OS X... whatever, none of it is in any way technically immune to malware. Not malware that spreads in a trojanlike manner of fooling users, or drive-by malware that exploits flaws in software to infect silently. However, in practice, Unix based is practically immune to this stuff because the average Unix user is far more learned than the average Windows user, because many attackers concentrate exclusively on the more-widespread-on-desktops Windows, and because many Unix systems are used to do things that don't really expose them to all the attacks ye average Windows desktop faces (for example, how can you exploit a browser vulnerability to attack some Linux system that is a server, and no-one ever uses it to browse anything in the greater interweb).


Wow, that was a big "I digress" from me. Sorry, guys.

As for the topic of Chrome OS, I'm not interested. Sure, it's good to have new comers. But I think we've seen a few Linux distros already. And the "cloud computing" concept of running apps over the browser is about as interesting to me as getting shot at. No, no, I will never use anything like that if I can avoid it without excessive discomfort and trouble. Inefficient, insecure.

 

Here we go again. How many times must we repeat this same tired old argument? It really gets boring. It seems the MS shills never get tired of trying to spread this FUD.

 

Exactly.

A lot of Linux users seem really ignorant about what's going on with the malware industry these days. Which I guess is understandable, seeing as how the malware industry has more or less left them alone in peace. Unfortunately this also means their knowledge about infection mechanisms is also about six years out of date. Is Linux a secure OS? Undoubtedly. Will it be safe from malware if it goes mainstream and catches the attention of the commercial malware industry? Dream on.

An example of how modern malware groups operate: "Trojan masquerades as fictional MacCinema software." No reliance on system exploits, just good old social engineering. Macs moved mainstream, and got targeted. Firefox moved mainstream, and got targeted. Anyone who bothers to keep track with happenings in the malware field has seen this happen over and over, simple as that.

 

I know what's going on with malware. This;
"Computerworld - Microsoft on Thursday confirmed it has known about a bug behind widespread Internet Explorer (IE) attacks for more than a year, but defended its security process against critics."

 

Here's a couple of clues folks....

• A difference of opinion does not equate to being a shill. If you think it does, find another site to frequent.
• This is the all things Unix forum. Time to stop dragging cultural battles involving other OS's into the threads. For point of reference, if this does happen to occur, let it go. Don't feel compelled to prolong the diversion by continually responding to it. The back and forth simply continues the off-topic tangent. If you let it go, it will subside.

If you can't adhere to that guidance, thread closure will follow.

Blue

 

yes that´s what i thought