Slashdot Mirror
Google Shares Its Security Secrets
Stony Stevenson writes "Google presents a big fat target for would-be hackers and attackers. At the RSA conference Google offered security professionals a look at its internal security systems. Scott Petry, director of Google's Enterprise and founder of security firm Postini, explained how the company handles constant pressure and scrutiny from attackers. In order to keep its products safe, Google has adopted a philosophy of 'security as a cultural value.' The program includes mandatory security training for developers, a set of in-house security libraries, and code reviews by both Google developers and outside security researchers."
Google fights scrutiny with scrutiny (and by having more PHDs than you).
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
... why so much spam comes from gmail, or usenet spam from Google groups.
Have gnu, will travel.
Google presets a big fat target for would-be hackers and attackers.
Must be a new Google appliance. I'm glad it is preset, and does not need any end-user configuration.
In any case, I commute on the train with Google guys in NY. They use their laptops to work on the train, but have those little wireless security devices that generate random passwords for them when they want to log in, so their connection is fully encrypted.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
How many buffer overrun exploits have been found in other people's software because the coders are just lazy? Google also tries to prevent this by explicit rules that everyone must follow no matter what: for example, you are not allowed to check in code using sprintf instead of snprintf.
A little thing to be sure... until you realize that it's one of many such rules, and they actually are followed.
TFA is a little scant on "security secrets."
What is covered is some general security policy and philosophy.
And here I was, waiting to read all about GIDS and GFirewall. Thanks, ITNews, for instead educating be about archiving security logs for later review!
My blog
This article at the San Francisco Chronicle doesn't tell me exactly what is going on, but apparently there is the potential for 7 of 10 search results to return malware.
My mother heard about this on the TV news, but the above was all I could find. Anyone else have any more detail?
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
I still find it surprising that it ICMP_ECHO_REPLYs my ICMP_ECHO_REQUESTs. Why?
A lot of sites disable ping because, years ago, The Ping of Death could crash a server by sending maliciously-crafted ping packets.
And you can DOS a server by flooding it with pings.
I'd be interested to know just how many pings Google receives, and replies to each day.
And how many of those are maliciously encoded, only to be defeated by the ub3rh4x0r5 at Google.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I'm a bit down on Postini lately. A few months ago, they started marking my personal e-mails to Postini customers as spam. Which is kinda ironic. And pretty damned annoying, since my lawyer, my broker, my apartment manager and my chiropractor are all on Postini servers. But hey, that happens. I went over my server with a fine-tooth comb, I set up SPF, DomainKey, DKIM, no luck. I even switched servers. No matter. My e-mail, now digitally signed in triplicate, was still being scored as 90% probable spam.
So I tried to get in touch with their postmaster group. Only they don't have one. And I tried to check their feedback loop. Only they don't have one. As a shareholder, I even wrote to Investor Relations. No response. In the process, I found out that they have a universally awful reputation among the mail delivery community.
In the end, all they could tell me was that their system decided my mail was spam because - I kid you not - their system had, previously, decided my mail was spam. Which, of course, increases my spamminess score. And so on, and so on, until we're all using the same shampoo.
So, to recap: The guy in charge of keeping Google secure, Scott Petry, is the guy who invented a system that bit-buckets your e-mail, with absolutely no accountability, no sanity checks, no industry best practices... because of guilt by association WITH YOURSELF.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
"Scott Petry, director of Google's Enterprise"
The big secret? apparently google is developing a starship
I still find it surprising that it ICMP_ECHO_REPLYs my ICMP_ECHO_REQUESTs. Why? I find it surprising that you find it surprising!
Ping is a service we all should provide to our internal networks from individual hosts, and to the Internet at large at the network edge. Configure your routers to respond to pings for your hosts instead of passing them through the firewalls. Ping is how people who need to test their ability to reach your hosts or site can do so. It is a simple tool that consumes a minimal amount of bandwidth to get the job done. I'd be interested to know just how many pings Google receives, and replies to each day. They might tell you if you ask. If it ever gets out of hand they'll just respond with normal traffic shaping techniques. And how many of those are maliciously encoded, only to be defeated by the ub3rh4x0r5 at Google. There's nothing dangerous about ping. Nothing... you can tell if a network is competently administered just by pinging it, my friend. I'd never hire anyone who had an unpingable net.
Hmmm... where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him? OK, look, blocking ping is like saying that you've seen a guy killed by an Isuzu truck, so you think you can prevent all fatal accidents by banning Isuzu trucks from the highway. In reality, all you will do is prevent beer deliveries to my house, since my beer distributor uses Isuzus. This will make me hate you, just like people hate clueless firewall admins who block ICMP. Or wait, you saw a guy get bludgeoned to death with a hammer so you will ban all hammers while allowing people with large wrenches, razor knives and screwdrivers to pass without comment. That was pretty bad I think.