Slashdot Mirror
Source Code To Google Authentication System Stolen
Aardvark writes "More details are coming out about the extent of the break-in at Google a few months ago. The NY Times is reporting that one of the things stolen was the source code to Google's single sign-on authentication system, called Gaia. Though Google is making changes to the system, the theft raises the possibility that attackers could analyze the code to find new exploits to take advantage of in the future. No wonder that Eric Schmidt recently said they've become paranoid about security."
Strange - didn't you guys say if I had nothing to hide, privacy didn't matter?
tar.gz or it didn't happen
More eyes make the bugs shallow, right? ;)
Put identity in the browser.
So, Schmidt is worried because google was relying on security through obscurity?
Seriously, the bad guys already have it, so enlist the help of the security community to improve it.
We are agents of the free
I thought the cloud was secure?
They should open source it, since a copy is out on the loose anyway. This could work to their advantage.
I still think capability based security is the only workable long term solution..
http://www.slashcode.com/
i'd love to see /. put their source out there, money where their mouth is so to speak.
...You mean like http://www.slashcode.com/about.shtml ?
From TFA: "By clicking on a link [sent on Microsoft Messenger] and connecting to a 'poisoned' Web site, the employee inadvertently permitted the intruders to gain access to his (or her) personal computer and then to the computers of a critical group of software developers at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. Ultimately, the intruders were able to gain control of a software repository used by the development team."
I don't know about you, but I'm quite shocked at how an innocuous thing like this can lead to the theft of "one of Google's crown jewels". Are their security practises that lax over there in Google China? And, considering that this happened to Google - a leading Tech-savvy company - how many other corporations and conglomerates have already been hit by a similar attack? Banks? Military? Oil and Gas? Heck, MSFT?? After all, TFA reported that it was a "lightning raid that lasted less than two days".
And yeah, while TFA sounds like Luddite fear-mongering, I think it's a valid concern for everyone.
The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
matched the target
that is, the economics of the attack is not a common one: your average podunk company offers what, exactly? and i'm not even talking in terms of financial possibilities, i'm talking in terms of corporate and political espionage, which the chinese government is interested in, not common robbery. because with google, if you break in, you get such a huge payoff in terms of strategic intelligence, unlike any other exploitable entity. so somewhere in china, a stable of minds are focused like a laser on you
and structurally, security wise, the problem is the same as terrorism: the good guys have to be vigilant all the time, they can't fail ever. while the bad guys: they can screw up time and again, that's ok. they learn even. they only need to get in once. so even if you are google, no, ESPECIALLY if you are google because you're such a fabled target, you are at a strategic disadvantage, even with all your resources, to be hacked. those who want to hack you are ready to invest heavily into hacking you: its a good investment, because the payoff is gargantuan, the economics of the security situation works against google
the REAL lesson is for us, the common joe blows of the world: don't put all of your eggs in one basket. have an ecosystem of interdepndent accounts with different companies. don't do EVERYTHING at google, or their exposure is your exposure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They took the Movie without paying for MPAA consent, hence they stole it.
We like to change the meaning of the words when it's convenient for us
They took the code without Google's consent, hence they stole it.
Not quite. In most jurisdictions, the question "Is it theft?" is answered by the following tests.
1. Was the property provably taken without consent?
2. Was the property provably taken with the intent of depriving its rightful owner of said property?
If both of those tests are true, it's theft. In this case, Google still has a copy of their code, so the crime would not be considered theft in most jurisdictions.
Of course, in the USA there is no national definition of theft, since it's defined and prosecuted at the state level. Talk about confusing.
"Theft" is a concept that really varies in meaning from place to place. I guess that's why so many people jump on their high horse, wave their hands madly, and proclaim that various petty infringements are "stealing". They are probably right in the context of some banana republic somewhere.
Being positive today I'm going to go with maybe English isn't your first language. Here is a definition..
They took the code without Google's consent, hence they stole it.
hmmm. actually it sounds like you're the one with a poor grasp of what's going on here. Definition of 'take' - "to remove, capture, consume, or dispossess from someone else."
the sourcecode was not stolen. a copy of the sourcecode was stolen. and this is a crucial distinction since "steal" means to deprive from another. and while google has been violated, they most absolutely have not been deprived of any code.
a common sense analogy for you: say i break into your house and photocopy all of your books. no one would suggest that i've stolen your books. for me to have stolen you books, i would have to take then and leave you with nothing. in the google case that did not happen. hence OP's quite proper correction.