(Reuters) - Web search group Google Inc is phasing out internal use of rival Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system because of security concerns following a Chinese hacking incident, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.

Citing several Google employees, the FT said the decision to move to other operating systems including Apple Inc's Mac OS and open-source Linux began in earnest in January after Google's Chinese operations were hacked.

Internet security firm McAfee Inc said at the time the cyber attacks on Google and other businesses had exploited a previously unknown flaw in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, which was vulnerable on all recent versions of Windows.

The FT quoted one Google employee as saying: "We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort." Another said: "Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO (chief information officer) approval."

Google said in a statement: "We're always working to improve the efficiency of our business, but we do not comment on specific operational matters."

Google, which already offers e-mail, Web and other software products that compete with Microsoft's offerings, is developing its own operating system based on its Chrome browser. It will initially target netbooks, or inexpensive, pared-down notebook PCs.

Microsoft Windows runs about nine out of 10 of the world's personal computers.

(Reporting by Georgina Prodhan; Editing by David Holmes)

Microsoft hits back at Google over security

Emma Woollacott | Wed 2nd Jun 2010, 05:39 am

Microsoft has responded angrily to claims that Google is banning Windows from staffers' machines.

According to reports yesterday, Google has been phasing out Windows since the beginning of the year because of security concerns, particularly following major attacks on its servers last year.

Instead, the company is said to be replacing Windows with Chrome, the Mac OS and Linux.

But Microsoft's Windows communications manager, Brandon LeBlanc, calls this ironic, citing Yale University's decision to halt a move to Gmail because of security fears.

"When it comes to security, even hackers admit we’re doing a better job making our products more secure than anyone else," he says.

"And it’s not just the hackers; third party influentials and industry leaders like Cisco tell us regularly that our focus and investment continues to surpass others."

And David Marcus of Macafee says that Windows wasn't to blame for the Operation Aurora attacks.

"The intel that the attackers gathered to make Operation Aurora work is what made it a success – not the operating system involved. The targets were the people," he says.

"Would it make any difference if the victims were running Linux or any other operating system if an attacker builds such a sophisticated profile? Not remotely. Linux, Windows, Mac, whatever – everything has weaknesses. Especially the users of those systems."

Windows and Security: Setting the Record Straight
June 2nd, 2010

Then again this text is straight if you look sideways at it.

So brotherred made a dent about a story which I stole the headline of this blogpost from. Er, actually used in a humourous way that is covered under Fair Use!

Now I completely disagree with half the article, and think is he is probably being disingenuous with the other half to make people think he means something when he is carefully phrasing it a different way (either that or he is a corporate douchebag, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he is smart!).

So what does his article say? I’ll skim through the main points (i.e. as many points as I can do before I have to stop before my blood pressure ends up higher then a giraffe’s)The linked article talks about Google ditching Microsoft. See Microsoft, I don’t mind saying Microsoft when I am not a major fan of Microsoft. I even say that I have used Microsoft products in my entire career at work (so you could even argue I make my income through Microsoft products). Anyhoo, lets move on. I have no problem ’setting the record straight’ when it needs to be.Except it doesn’t. It says:Note it says delayed and not halted. But Brandon LeBlanc says halted, which has much larger connotations then just delayed. Even if they decided not to, does this have anything to do with Microsoft being insecure (or not)? This is about how Google sends your data around the world to whatever data centre has space and that being a concern. Interestingly enough there was not talk of them moving from Microsoft Outlook to Google.

Yale are currently using some other thing called Horde Webmail. One wonders why they are not using these wonderful secure Microsoft systems. I mean they would get the discount for educational use so the licenses would be pretty darn cheap, and a mail server is a mail server so it shouldn’t be that much difference in cost for that so… why aren’t they using Outlook? That isn’t relevant to this story though, but I would suspect it could be from the security of it…Now let me use an analogy. I have a car that I used to always leave unlocked with the keys in. Now I’m just leaving it unlocked and most of the time I remove the keys. The local car thieves say I’m doing a better job of making my car more secure.

Actually I was a little disingenuous there myself – I removed the words than anyone else from the sentence changing the meaning. If you read the article, it’s just one hacker, and he says Microsoft have a better process set up then people like apple. Not really the same thing.

Processes don’t stop things like this they make it less likely. If my process was to make sure I removed my keys from the car and locked it and had no visible items it would reduce the chances of my car being broken into or stolen, but if I don’t follow the process and still leave it unlocked then having the process doesn’t fix it. As for the second part of the paragraph, Microsoft has much bigger pockets so I would hope that their focus and investment would continue to surpass others.

The article only mentions Microsoft in one sentence that says:How exactly does that mean that Cisco tell us regularly that our focus and investment continues to surpass others?

The final bit says:The inforworld article subheading says High-risk OSX/OpinionSpy, a variant of Windows malware, may be a sign of future insecurity for Apple. So it was Windows malware first, and also:So it’s a trojan. Hate to say this but going back to my car. Even if I lock it if I give the keys to someone who says he’s a good guy means he can take it. Again though, this is just comparing Microsoft to Apple, and ignores Linux entirely!

The list of things Microsoft are now doing are a good thing. I will freely admit Microsoft is doing much better then they used to, and they are focusing on security. But that doesn’t mean they are now the best which is what Brandon LeBlanc is trying to suggest. I will also admit that, at least with the little I have played with Windows 7, it is the best version of Windows I think they have made so far. Then again, a dog turd could be the best dog turd that dog has ever made, but it’s still a dog turd! I wouldn’t go that far though, Microsoft Windows (almost all versions) have given me my career my entire life, so whilst I may hate them and run Linux at home, my life would be a lot different without them.

In short, I think that:

• Windows security sucks. Putting usability over security will do that. You can have both, but you have to design that in from the ground up, which Microsoft didn’t do.
• Microsoft is getting much better then they were. But need to completely start over to get it up to the Linux standards.
• No matter how good your operating system is, or how strong your processes are, dumb users will break it. This works for Linux too – if I have root access and run rm -rf / then that box is gone.
• These articles are pulling some facts out to try to prove that Microsoft is great, but it comes under the standard FUD.
• I have spent too long on this article so need to stop it. Now.