Slashdot Mirror
Google Desktop Search Functions As Spyware
dioscaido writes "Users of the Google Desktop Search software beware -- it indexes your files across all users on your PC, bypassing user protections. The Google cache feature allows all users to browse the contents of messages and files it has indexed, irrespective of who is logged in. 'This is not a bug, rather a feature,' says Marissa Mayer, Google's director of consumer Web products. 'Google Desktop Search is not intended to be used on computers that are shared with more than one person.'" Reminds me of a Neal Stephenson essay: "The Hole Hawg is dangerous because it does exactly what you tell it to. It is not bound by the physical limitations that are inherent in a cheap drill, and neither is it limited by safety interlocks that might be built into a homeowner's product by a liability-conscious manufacturer. The danger lies not in the machine itself but in the user's failure to envision the full consequences of the instructions he gives to it."
Whether or not Google intended this, I take great pause at knowing any e-mail I write or read on a PC with Google Desktop Search could be called up and read by a complete stranger.
This application is intended for single user machines which pretty much limits it, in most cases, to home machines. I don't have complete strangers roaming around my house so it is not an issue for me.
Mayer dismissed my concern that this is a security issue. She points out that you can configure Google Desktop Search not to index Web pages or specific domains. That would prevent Google Desktop Search from indexing and caching the URL "mail.yahoo.com".
So what part of that did the reporter not understand? Finally, this is not mandatory software. A user has to hunt it down, download it, and install it. So don't use it if it is a problem for your computer. Now, I am not trying to be a jerk and some of this is said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Still, you gotta wonder why people need to find things to be upset about. I am not sure why this irks me so much, maybe I should drink less coffee.....
http://www.busyweather.com/
From reading the article, there is no indication that protected files were actually read. In fact, pretty much everything he talks about seems to have been pulled from the web cache. With default security on Windows XP, each user's cache is accessible to the other users. As are everyone's Outlook data files. This is not great security, but that is not Google's responsibility.
So, I'd be really interested to know if the desktop search application runs as an admin process, or with system rights. Unless it does, this article is nothing but hot air. Google indexes files that you can read anyway? OMG!!! This is teh suxxorz!!!
And spyware? Hardly. Nothing in the article even comes close to suggesting that all of this indexed information is transmitted anywhere.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
Keep in mind that once you have physical access to the machine, all bets are off.
However...
Google's tool could be a danger if someone figures out a way to launch it remotely, by getting a user to click a link, or through some Windows exploit. If so, it's plausible that a remote attacker could gain access to the cache and use the information to gain administrative access to the machine.
---
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Sir Stephen Henry Roberts
yeah, certainly not "spyware" in any usual sense of the word if the information isn't being made available or transmitted off the box.
Unless you add the path to the preference option of the user that you don't want to be indexed. This also isn't release software. Its beta toy tools stuff. You know, the kind that says "use at your own risk."
The Hole Hawg is dangerous because it does exactly what you tell it to.
Yes, well computers in general are dangerous because they are very good at doing exactly what you tell them to do. For better OR for worse.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
Since when does this constitute spyware? To my knowledge, spyware sends information to a third party without the user's knowledge.
It indexes all the files that you'd have access to anyway...
Can't see what the fuss is.
My Journal
Sounds like another fiasco that Google is gonna have to withstand, just for being honest. Anyone remember when the privacy hounds were out about GMail perpetually storing your mail, and that a *gasp* computer would actually read it! Reminds me exactly of this. Of course, they'll come out and clarify it later, but by then the damage will be done. Oh well.
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Suddenly I'm not so bothered that there's no Mac version!
goog up 2 bucks on the news
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The first versions of locate(1) had the same problem - the cronjob was indexing all the files and reporting on all the files even if the user running locate would not be able to learn of the file name. This was used as an way to circumvent the systems with the "security by obscurity" way of collaboration via random directory names. Today's slocate doesn't have this fallacy.
VKh
Spyware has a different definition...
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
This is a weak argument by Google. Saying that this tool is only for single-user systems is just a cover for laziness. Why in hell would an operating system implement a system of file permissions if security weren't an issue? Since the tool functions the same whether or not the system is single-user, Google is implicitly admitting they're lazy and don't care if their software can be used to spy on others. I don't see a problem with a tool that indexes all users' files, but I do have a problem if it doesn't restrict file listings when used by non-administrators. How hard could that be to implement?!
Does it phone home, sending entire indexes of your harddrive to google?
Yeah, then it kills your entire family and rapes your dog. Not being evil isn't as easy as it sounds I guess.
Windows users have had "home" directories that are inaccesible to anyone except themselves and a domain administrator since NT4 was released. If this Google tool is allowed to index things it's not suppose to index, then that's not Google's fault, and it's certainly not Microsoft's. It's the fault of whomever configured that machine. AFAIK NTFS security has not been comprimised yet.
And the "spyware" tag? Love it. FUD works both ways, doesn't it?
I just installed Google Desktop today, but so far I'm pretty impressed. Even though it's still indexing, I haven't noticed any difference in speed.
Google Desktop isn't spyware, because it makes what it is doing clear before you install it. Of course it reads your files; that's how Google works. As long as my data doesn't go back to Google, I couldn't care less.
And actually, if everyone could choose just some of our files to make available publicly, think how much more useful Google would be.
Maybe that's their plan. Get everybody to index their disks, and than offer killer p2p on Google.com.
Does anybody *else* think that would be awesome?
Now I can share all those important email attachments people keep sending me!
Seems like every step Google has taken to make searching more integrated into our life and software has been shot by the media saying it's "too intrusive", and this is on BETA software and BETA programs that Google are running.
This says that either Google's far too ahead of it's time, or that the media really needs to grow up. Google's policy is that their software does no evil, it's the user's responsibility to make sure that they are not evil with it. Besides, if someone wanted to write a trojan to scan all of a user's files and report back somewhere, it could be done a lot easier than hacking GDS.
Face facts people; Google's here to stay, and they're here to help.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
First of all, most Windows PCs are single-user.
Second, this just lets any user find anything that he has read permission on. As usual, Windows default settings are suitable only for single-user machines.
Third, it could only be ``spyware'' if it phoned home. Even the silly article didn't suggest that it does that.li>
Just another sensationalist /. headline. Nothing to see here ....
See what I've been reading.
The default file permissions seem to vary by the app that created them. My .mozilla and .kde directories are not world-readable, so the web caches would not get scanned. However, plenty of other files are world-readable by default, along with most documents I create.
This general situation has been around for many years. If you do share a machine, it's probably just a good idea to learn about file permissions in general.
I never installed the google search tool since it warned that it be installed as an Internet Explorer "helper application." Ahem, cough....IE...helper application...back to the drawing board google.
That's still an information leak, and thus a security breach. If a user can see filenames of other user's files, or inspect URL's that other users typed in, then they accessed that other user's private data. Just knowing what files are accessed or what webpages were visited, can be as serious a security breach as any, depending on the context.
If the files don't have appropriate permissions set, what expectation do you have of someone not being able to do this? This is why the question whether the files are protected is important.
In UNIX, I could use "locate" to find out whether a co-worker has cookies from porn sites if the permissions are not set. And what about Windows' "Search for files containing the following text?"
We have a total lack of information.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The locate command was designed to get around the terribly slow transversal of directories when looking for a particular filename. It suffered the same basic design flaw in that it did not take user permission into account. The slocate (s as in secure) was designed to get around this obvious flaw. I'm a tad surprised Google didn't see this one coming. Maybe they've been hiring a few too many PhDs and not enough folks with real experience :-)
Makes sense that you don't bite the hand that feeds ya.
next...
This article looks like a plant from the Microsoft PR department. There really is not much of a story here.
I know it has to be driving MS nuts that google is getting into the filesystem niche, especially with all the trouble they've had over the years with putting together a database-based filing system. I imagine if they keep on pushing the release out past Longhorn, google is going to overtake them .
Does it install itself onto your PC without your permission? No.
Does it gather personal information and send it to Google? No.
Does it run secretly in the background, with no way to remove it save an anti-spyware tool? No.
Does it allow you to access anything you couldn't access without it? No.
How is this spyware again? Or even a security threat? As another poster pointed out, this tool doesn't access anything you couldn't access through Explorer.
What's this, is Slashdot helping to spread FUD?!? Say it ain't so!
I think it's funny that the people complaining about Spyware use SlashDot which often serves DoubleClick ads. And the author who links to PCWorld which has a few DoubleClick and Avenue A, Inc. ads. The DoubleClick threat as defined by SpyBot reads, "Use information about your web surfing... that could include any information, like accounts and passwords." The threat for Avenue A, Inc. reads "They say they no longer do tracking."
--I smoked my sig.
It runs as *four* processes on my box:
C:\Program Files\Google\Google Desktop Search\GoogleDesktop.exe
C:\Program Files\Google\Google Desktop Search\GoogleDesktopIndex.exe
C:\Program Files\Google\Google Desktop Search\GoogleDesktopCrawl.exe
C:\Program Files\Google\Google Desktop Search\GoogleDesktopOE.exe
Seems like more than enough.
I am finished indexing.
Users of the Google Desktop Search software beware -- it indexes your files across all users on your PC, bypassing user protections.
This is just too misleading to be accidental. Talk about bias.
So dioscaido, you are suggesting Google defeats NTFS users/groups directory permissions and encryption?
No?
Oh.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Completely irresponsible journalism at work folks.
Basically this utility works NO DIFFERENT than "Start-->Search-->Search IN files", except that noobs don't know how to use Search properly, and Google search is "prettier". Oh, and MS's brain dead Search can't peek inside compressed files. Whoopie-do.
If I were more cynical, I'd chalk this fear-mongering up to someone with a lot of Yahoo stock, or someone afraid their wife/husband will find email evidence of an extra-marital affair. By default in Windows, ALL USERS CAN READ EACH OTHER'S FILES.
Nothing to see here, move along..
DISCLAIMER: I own no Google or Yahoo stock.
PC World has long been a Microsoft yellow journalism rag. It's just Microsoft Corp.'s Department of Monopoly Security at work.
Really, the Google tool is simply very powerful and is merely exposing the low default security in Windows profiles to the masses--but it's nothing me and the parent haven't known for 4 or 5 years now..........
Nothing to see here.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Better do some research before trolling. The Desktop engine has a service that monitors where are you browsing. When you access any of the Google sites (or any site thats on the Sites.txt, I asume), the EXE changes the HTML on-the-fly, inserting the results from your harddrive on the Google page. The same goes to the main page (thats why you see the Desktop Engine link).
:: Andrea
Anime Wallpapers
Read the article more carefully. As far as I can tell what's actually happening is that Google Desktop Search makes copies of users protected files into an unprotected folder that may be accessed by all users. As the author says:
"I was not able to access the query results directly, but Google Desktop Search stores cached versions of search results found on your desktop, just like it does for its Web searches. The cached versions of the pages could be viewed."
while i can understand why some people might be leary of the security implications here, how in the world does this qualify as spyware? it doesn't pop up annoying adds, it doesn't send my data to some secret gathering place, it doesnt report any of my habits to any other person (unless thay also have physical access to my computer and can search for that information)
oh yeah, got ahead of myself. spyware is the new virus. its just a word one person uses to scare another person when neither one really knows what they are talking about. nothing to see, move along...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
The problem as I see it is in the startlingly easy way google desktop search makes intrusion possible, sometimes even without the person searching intentionally looking into other user's data. Any keyword I type is an instantaneous hook into the world of the other user who used the pc before me. That is what I find scary.
/. user. It only indexes files in your Documents directory, it only indexes a handful of files (.doc, .xls, .txt, .html files for example). It has SEVERAL limitations that are annoying. For example: I want it to index my java source code and javadocs for the project I'm working on. However, it refuses to index them.
But that's just it. It's a SEARCH tool. It's supposed to find things that you don't know about. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a very good search tool. This should not be installed on public computers. And, if you are personally are concerned about it, there are products out there that will store all that sensitive information (browser history, email files) on a USB drive that you plug into the public computer before use.
As it is, I don't know how useful it will be to the average
Also, it doesn't index my Firefox cache or history, nor does it index my Thunderbird mail files.
In other words, nice try Google, but it's not useful to me (yet).
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
I read this article a couple of hours ago, so I did what any self-respecting geek would do: I tried to see if the reporter/bloghead was full of shit or not. If you don't want to read any further, he is.
He used a public machine, presumably using a single logon. The software functioned as expected. It cached, separate from your IE cache, all traffic it was designed to cache. He then was able to search the data that anyone left on the machine. I contend that any douchebag that is dumb enough to send sensitive data from public terminal deserves whatever they get, ignorant or not.
The desktop search stores data in the c:\documents and settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search directory. On any PC that is relatively private, the average user isn't going to be able to search anyone else's data without a little bit of work. I had to actually copy the cache files from another user's profile to my PC in order to read the files. If were sharing a PC, I'd have to have elevate rights and access to the other user's provile in order to see anything of value.
As far as I'm concerned, the reporter that wrote the article doesn't know squat. There's no story here. Well, there is. He should have written abou the dangers of using a public terminal to send personal and/or sensitive data.
It's 11PM, do you know where your pants are?
The other thing is that locate doesn't let you search within files. Normally, the name of a file is not that important, what is inside is. There are exceptions, of course.
Considering that the essay is largely about the superiority of Unix, and the blindness of the prevailing PC/Mac culture to the existence of Unix, the PC/Mac dichotomy presented here seems oddly appropriate.
Of course this notion of "downloading" a compressed version is dumb. Harper Collins just needs to add mod_gz to their web server, so they can transparently compress for most modern browsers.
True story. MS does some bizzare virtualization of the cache directory. What explorer sees really isn't there. Go go command prompt, CD to the cache folder, and do dir /AH and dir /AS and compare to explorer.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
First let me say this is a very powerful and convenient tool that works as advertised right out of the box. However, I am also upset by how easily this group defends Google and attacks Microsoft. I'm sorry, but if you are creating software you need to keep the users in mind and work with the environment you are given.
I have done a lot of research into how the Google Desktop system works. Here are some things I found...
1. The indexing "agent" (not a windows service) runs as the current user. So, Windows security should block Google from viewing those files.
2. Google installs its own web server on the machine and maps to port 4664. They also do a lot of validation to make sure you can only see this information from the local machine. This appears to be pretty strong.
3. Google stores its cache in the following windows directory: C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search -- Leading me to believe that this is user specific. I checked permissions on this other users do not have access to the cache, leading me to believe they would have their own version of the cache.
4. Google seems to abide by the rules of the operating system. Unless they are somehow bypassing Windows security (being google they could reverse engineer anything I guess), this is pretty sound. So it really comes down to the user for setting permissions on their files. Otherwise any old search program could also find those files.
5. Google Desktop search is not spyware. I think the fear is how it integrates your desktop with the Google home page but the truth is no information is sent. At least that's what Google says. However, I looked at the source of what is returned and this is not done using client-side script or an ActiveX object, so I'm not sure how they pull this off. This sort of scares me. For instance, the path to one of my files is seen coming from the their server.
Now, the bad side...
While I was impressed by the lockdown of interface to the local machine, this is easily compromised. In an hour or two I created a VBScript class that could host on the user's machine and use local HTTP to access this data. This means that spyware could be created that allow remote access to the otherwise ironclad cache. This is obviously bad since you could just start searching for passwords and possibly get them.
My suggestion to Google? Add additional settings. For instance, right now the default setting is EVERYWHERE, with some control over WHAT gets indexed. I suggest being able to point the index at specific folders, or be able to not index other folders. This is sort of like shipping a firewall with all ports open. Sure its up to the user to lock it down, but if you don't... bad things happen.
Also, more filetypes would be really good. Especially more code files, etc.
I also think the ability to share your cache could be an option. This would be handy to install on a corporate file server to provide access to files (this is the reason I created the remote access hack)
Of course this may be Google's strategy all along... make the free version do everything and be for personal systems, and then sell a version with more file types, more granular control, sharing etc. Sounds like good bait and switch to me.
So that is all. Very good software, very easy to use. Ships wide open and could breach privacy on beginner level users. Can be used for attack and Google needs to consider this. Overall.. thank you Google!
Here's the whole (hole?) essay:
http://steve-parker.org/articles/others/stephenso
Some choice quotes:
It's very, very difficult to have both the presence of mind and the physical strength to hang onto a powerful drill that's just flung you off your ladder. Kudos to that guy-- I wasn't so lucky.
There never seemed to be a good happy medium between holding the drill tightly enough that when it hung up I had enough of a grip to let it grind through whatever was hanging it up and loosely enough that when it REALLY hung up I could abandon it without injury.
Apply appropriate Windows/UNIX metaphors.
I doubt that Google, or any other company dedicated to develop software, could do such a silly application. In any case, it would be Windows fault if their supposed protected files could be ready by a user (or application) not authorized. Also, as somebody already pointed, nobody is forcing you to donwload and install this tool, if you wanna use it then do so, it's free and it's easy.
Alexis Bellido
I agree 100% it should honor the ACLs, but I wonder if we could do anything else?
We essentially have the google bot on our machines, would it be good to honor the standards the realbot uses?
Would it pick up and honor my robots.txt file?
Will we start seeing meta tags inside emails and word documents and stored pages to exclude from indexing?
liqbase
And removed it today.
I arrived home from work today, and fired up a simple search using my now-indexed Google Desktop. The first item listed, by dint of a coincidental search term, was an email my cleaning lady had sent.
The 'drill' in the email was NOT the one I was looking for.
I must say, I was quite surprised - the search cached viewed and sent emails from a private hotmail account - it even kept a view of the inbox.
This is, well, bullshit. Really - how many people NEVER have anyone else on their system. This search has wayyyyyyyyyyyy tooo much room for abuse - and once they fix it, I guarantee you this old version will be worth $$$ on the black market...
The last fucking thing you want is my undivided attention...
Hopefully you at least read the article. Because your trolling is not helping.
So as to not be a troll, the point is that anyone with physical access to your machine can install something that takes advantage of caches, or creates it's own. This "news item" is blown out of proportion because the user went to a machine that had *already* had Google Desktop Search installed.
Any user that wanted to read all your yahoo email could just as easily have installed a key catcher, either hardware or software. Or all sorts of other types of spyware/snoopware.
The only real news here is that you shouldn't be doing anything you want kept private on a public machine. Is that news to anyone here?
In particular I'd like someone to prove the news summary posted here at slashdot, "it indexes your files across all users on your PC, bypassing user protections ". Go ahead and prove it. Come over to my house, install the software and then show me my Yahoo email. Good luck.
Joseph Elwell.
I'd like to think that the long range plan here is to make people aware of how useless Microsoft software is for people who are interested in protecting their data, thereby raising interest in real operating systems like Linux and OS X.
Too bad the versions for those platforms aren't available yet, because then the Google response could be the perfect "That's just because you're using a worthless OS. Try one of these..."
My
I installed the google desktop search.
I had to be an admin to do the install. That means I have to have rights to read all files on the machine to install it.
I switched to a non admin account, I was told only the original person who installed it could run it.
I switched to a different admin account, tried to run it, got the message that only the installer could. I attempted to install it again under this account, I got the message that it's not meant for multi-user systems, only one user can install it on a PC at a time.
So in summary, if you don't trust someone who's an admin on your system, don't use that system. The search only makes it easier for them to see your data - they already have rights to.
Are we talking about installing this Google Desktop Search software on Windows XP Home edition or Windows XP Pro? There is a huge difference between how these two operating systems handle user right assignments. Windows XP Home has a very stripped down version of the system whereby you can't easily change user permissions of individual folders. My guess is that most people will set up user accounts on the home version with "Administrator" rights as many programs simply don't work correctly in XP as a "User".
Because XP Pro is typically used in office environments, if you set up a user account and you log in, you will NOT be able to see the other users folders unless an Admin sets those permissions.
Of course, all this seems silly as linux has had proper file permission settings forever whereas Windows has just recently added that feature.
It isn't accessing the Internet - it uses a local loopback connection to talk to its server, but your firewall doesn't distinguish that.
Google Desktop can send debug info to Google, but the claim is that it sends no information about what you searched for or your local file contents to Google. You can opt out of the debug and statistical info collection.
The first rule of system security is that the only security is PHYSICAL security.
;-). You need to make that decision yourself but I do admit that most kids can find out what they need to know to penetrate any parents computers VERY easily. I do cruise the script-kiddie boards (often) to see what they are up to and the tools are all there within easy reach (Google search ;-) ).
What are the flaws here? It's a publicly accessible machine. Anyone can walk up and since it is publicly accessible, can merrily publicly access away. The presence or absence of the Google search tool in and of itself means nothing. In addition, with the tools that I have here, even if you DID have individual accounts I can own that machine, one way or another, in under a minute. It would slow me down some if someone with real Windows knowledge set up the system secuirty, but that is all that would happen, it would slow me down. After all, I do this for a living (systems security consultant). Don't be overjoyed Linux users, if I know your version, I can get you too. I track the vulnerability lists on a daily basis and no one save the truly paranoid (moi, of course) patches THAT quick!
Now, in the context of a personal PC, whose ox is getting gored here? No one. By definition. Note, I said personal PC. My personal PC, fully locked down Win'Server 2003 Ent., or as fully locked down as you can get with Windows (snort), happens to have this beast installed and yes I did pause to read the documentation, EULA, and all the warnings that they posted. This is just another search tool that just happens to use a web server front end so you can search using a browser interface that looks just like Google. Powerful (not Windows Find in my book) search tools have existed for eons in the computing world. This is yet another one and pretty spiffy actually. I was pretty impressed that it found in under a second something that I had been searching for for days, yes even with some pretty powerful search tools. Nice job!
Now, is my system less secure? No, if someone walked up, or happened to break into my system from the outside (about as likely as hell freezing over), then yes, having this available to them is a bit more of a problem but if they get in the door, then they already know where to drill down for personal information. Anything I'm really interested in protecting (under NDA, etc.) is already living on an encrypted HD with a VERY long key. Again, I'm paranoid. For the average user, again, once in somehow the presence of this tool changes nothing.
What is interesting is the potential for abuse in the case of a family or office setting. Be assured that half the problem in knowing where to go in those settings is identifying the interesting places and then you can identify the system security penetration required. This is NOT recommended for use in an office setting, but Google points out that it was not intended for such use anyway and spells it out most eloquently in the EULA as well. You do read the EULA, don't you? I do.
For the home, how much do you want to hide from your parents, spouse, or kids? Having no spouse of kids, I can't say. As for my parents, I'm the one locking down their systems
So that's my two cents. Mere FUD. BTW, what idjit uses a public computer and expects no one to know what they are doing? Apparently a LOT of idjits accordinig to a fellow SysOp elsewhere that happens to have a day job at a large library. If the cops want to catch a lot of kiddie porn and kiddie stalkers, I can tell them right where to go, but they aren't listening (sigh).
NetBlackOps
-"Never give entropy an entrance!"
OK, so this guy who wrote the article is a moron. I installed this on my Win2000 machine using my main account which is an Administrator account (but not 'administrator') and had it index my machine. I then switched to the 'administrator' username just to see what would happen, and it says that it was installed by somebody else (a different account) and couldn't run. Therefore, there is no security breach that I can see, and I was using two different administrator accounts.
The FAQ mentions multiple users who use the same login and password. Well, of course, duh. If several people use the same account, of course they can see the same files. It's the same damn account.
And one more thing, it isn't spyware as spyware returns information about you to someone else, like a company. At most, it could be classified as a 'priviledge elevation' of sorts, since purportedly you can see other people's files, although I can't reproduce this on my machine.