Bruce Schneier: Chrome OS's Security Claims "Idiotic"

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/security_guru_calls_chrome_oss_security_claims_idiotic.php

by Shakescode • 17 years ago

26 33 17 years ago

param• 17 years ago

It would be good if we could look at his actual statement/blog post rather than an analysis. Given how so few of his words are mentioned in the "article", it makes me wonder if the 'press' is misinterpreting what he really said.

brown9-22• 17 years ago

The statements were given in an interview with Yahoo News: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090708/tc_pcworld/googl...

jgfoot• 17 years ago

"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." Does anyone know what he's referring to? That would be an interesting read.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

He's talking about the halting problem, which isn't "2+2=3" impossible, but undecidable. Of course, the average engineer at Google has vastly more CS education than Schneier, would never have claimed to have solved the halting problem (or "program intent" as the AV people put it), and would have responded to this question more succinctly and accurately than Schneier did.

Retric4• 17 years ago

An infinite loop does not a virus make. With a multithreaded OS an infinite loop is not really a problem. Limiting resources to some defined level is a "solvable" problem.

brown9-22• 17 years ago

I really don't think anyone should view this claim as anything more than marketing claims and statements, not actual technical claims or guarantees.

datums• 17 years ago

Not worth reading. Let me save you a few minutes of your life. How do I vote this down ?

beeker• 17 years ago

True. Although this might enable an undesirable behaviour, since anything you pay attention to grows. So if one can't vote down. Voting something 'up' is effectively a vote down for all others.

OperaLover2• 17 years ago

"Google, while announcing its new Chrome operating system late Tuesday, said users would no longer have to worry about viruses, malware and security updates"

Good marketing. Tough to live down when you're first discovered to be "human" (developed by software engineers) - as it will be when Apple's first takes a major hit [which news suggests the iPhone may be vulnerable to].

doosra• 17 years ago

"Google... said users would no longer have to worry about viruses, malware and security updates"

I'm guessing since most applications on Chrome will be web-based, the vendor will worry about them. They will be able to more easily and quickly detect + destroy phishing schemes, viruses etc. Kind of like how Facebook has responded to malicious wall posts.

For me the bigger concern would be the loss of productivity due to downtime of web services, or loss of internet connectivity.

OperaLover2• 17 years ago

Perhaps a needed dose of sanity (even if hyped) to counter Google wishful thinking/marketing: "Google, while announcing its new Chrome operating system late Tuesday, said users would no longer have to worry about viruses, malware and security updates"

GeneralMaximus• 17 years ago

Whatever they do, I just hope they release the code. That way even if their redesign fails, the FOSS community will have something to learn from it, and if it's the best thing ever, it can be ported over to other Linux distros.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

"Guru" is probably the right word to use for Schneier at this point, and here's another great example of him inserting himself into a story he has no involvement in, making comments that betray a complete lack of awareness of the context of the story he's commenting on. Par, unfortunately, for the course.

It is doubtless the case that Schneier is fielding constant phone calls from trade reporters asking for his opinions on the security news of the day. Taking those calls, and writing the op-ed-style pieces that generate them, is probably the bulk of his job description. And so it's to be expected that he's going to be asked questions about things like Chrome's "virus-proofness", and having given no thought to Chrome or its architecture, be at a loss for pithy commentary. Hence, "2+2=3". Thanks, Bruce.

But before you feel too much sympathy for him, remember that he always has the ability to tell the reporter, "sorry, I don't know enough to comment intelligently on this story".

tc• 17 years ago

You've been interviewed by a reporter, yes? His very next sentence could have been something like, "It's not going to be virus-proof, but I'm glad to see they're thinking about security early. There is still a lot that can be done at the operating system level to improve security for the user."

The reporter would have cut that part out. It's not controversial enough. You could do the same thing with his blog post on homomorphic encryption if you took the phrases, "Gentry’s scheme is completely impractical," and "I think he’s being optimistic with even this most simple of examples," in isolation from "practicality be damned -- this is an amazing piece of work," and "I never expected to see one [a secure fully homomorphic cryptosystem]."

I don't understand this need to pull Schneier down. He's a smart guy, most of his writing is good, and he helped design a cipher that came pretty close to being selected for AES. Anyone who enters the media game is going to end up getting a bit caricatured.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

You'll note that I didn't comment on his post about Gentry's homomorphic encryption scheme, for two reasons: (1) homomorphic encryption is a very boring topic, and (2) I don't feel like I have an authoritative argument for Schneier not being qualified to talk about it. Having dispensed with the straw man in your second graf, I'll take the 1st and 3rd in order.

I have been interviewed by reporters. And I have, in fact, made lots of mistakes with them. Security researchers are unnaturally attractive to trade reporters, and there's business value in cultivating contacts with them, and I've definitely let that process run too far in the past.

So, a mistake is a mistake. And thus, regarding your first graf, two responses:

(1) I stand by my original argument that Schneier doesn't appear to be close enough to Chrome OS security to comment on it, and his comments appear to misconstrue what Chrome OS is aiming for, and

(2) I stand by my original argument that this is an example of Schneier's business objective of inserting himself into every conversation about computer security again coming at a cost of his credibility.

Finally, you want to understand my need to pull Schneier down. I don't care if he's smart. I care that he's a guru. He's listened to uncritically by lay professionals, and his opinions about the problems they face are often not valuable. I'll add that Schneier's reputation in cryptography --- a field I am not a part of --- is not ironclad. If you want to stick up for a scientist, start with their citation record. Let us know what you find.

imgabe2• 17 years ago

I think making a claim like users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates is potentially more dangerous than having an OS with a less robust security model.

Even linux and BSD systems are vulnerable if malicious programs are given the necessary permissions to run. If a casual user hears something like, "This OS is immune to viruses", they're likely to be a lot less cautious about running programs that might auto load from websites. By now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC.

moe• 17 years ago

By now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC.

Have any data to back that up? Because my impression is the opposite.

imgabe2• 17 years ago

Perhaps "most" is an overstatement, but certainly a greater proportion know better today than did 10-12 years ago. As time goes on that segment of the Windows user population is only going to increase.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

You're right in spirit, but let's kill the "permissions" meme. There's no normally-used Unix permissions that make viruses difficult to implant on Unix systems, and there's nothing on most people's machines that a virus would want access to that intrinsically requires "root".

The leading causes of malware are single-user machines and point-and-click software installation from the web. To the extent that any OS allows these, it's susceptable.

blhack2• 17 years ago

These sorts of arguments really make me facepalm.

Listen, Bruce, they don't literally mean that their OS will be completely and 100% totally impervious to any sort of malware or virus attack of any kind ever to exist ever in the future ever ever ever to infinity times infinity.

They mean that their OS will be considerably more resistant to any sort of reasonable malware attack in the foreseeable future, and they're 100% correct.

Windows, even just because of its target market, will be the low hanging fruit for as long as I think anybody can foresee. Simply because of this, linux and bsd-kernel based operating systems that are using proper user isolation (meaning not running as the freaking root account by default) are going to be more secure than windows.

tybris2• 17 years ago

> They mean that their OS will be considerably more resistant to any sort of reasonable malware attack in the foreseeable future

By the way, that's what Microsoft meant when they released Windows 98... and 98SE and ME, and 2000, and XP, and 2003, and Vista, and 2008, and 7.

Pointless claim. Just deliver and we'll see.

blhack2• 17 years ago

Linux has had a pretty long history of delivering on that claim...microsoft has not.

tybris2• 17 years ago

Just report, don't scoff experts. It makes you look stupid. Now what was the context? Ah, I see you were so busy trying to claim intellectual superiority (failed) that you forgot about that.

Bruce Schneier: Chrome OS's Security Claims "Idiotic"

Related Stories