Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Proposes "Know, Prevent, Fix" Framework For Dealing With Security Vulnerabilities

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
    Yes, it frustrates me that Outlook is so poor at searching e-mail. I can search in Thunderbird and find e-mails almost immediately, but Outlook? Slow, clunky and occasionally manages to not find the e-mail I'm actually searching for, despite the same search in Thunderbird bringing it up without any problem! Reported? Yes, many times. Fixed? Not since Outlook 2010.

    I dislike webmail in general. After many, many years of Yahoo! Mail, I use webmail only as a desperate last resort.


    I don't hate them, certainly not for being the dominant player in the market. Distrust is not hate. Sadly, you cannot disconnect one section of a company from another, its all part of a whole.

    No, I did not say that they make zerodays public without any waiting whatsoever. But there are various stories (I remember a couple reported on Phoronix) across the years. Now there are often mitigating circumstances (evidence of attack already being used in the wild, or Microsoft being slow) however whether actively advertising it is a good idea or not? The debate isn't going to stop, and I do not know which "side" I agree with more, as there are good and bad arguments for both sides.
    Well, if it's an actively exploited zeroday, and Microsoft sits on its ass, I don't know what option they have. From the second link:

    "Details of the unpatched flaw were revealed publicly after Microsoft failed to rectify it within 90 days of responsible disclosure on September 24."

    I'm sorry, and personal feelings aside, I think that it is deeply unfair to blame Google here. So Microsoft's grotesquely irresponsible when it comes to security (this is something that has always been true about them, even though they did improve over the last 20 years or so), yet it's Google's fault?

    Few large companies operate like monoliths. Even Apple is not one, despite appearing as one. Google OTOH is a lot more like a motley crew than a monolith.
    Last edited by vladpetric; 04 February 2021, 02:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by ddriver View Post

      They are not driven by an intent to do good. They are driven by an intent to make money on people, which backfires and taints IT services, so this is but a mitigation, a band aid that will merely hide the nasty festering wound, but do nothing to treat the underlying infection.


      They are trying to facilitate keeping IT services corrupt and exploitative, rather than to make them better. They are merely addressing a symptom, not the root issue. It is lipstick on a pig.

      Google doesn't do good, I mean on the absolute scale, nothing of what it does has benefits to society that outweigh the benefits to itself. It only gives when that enables it to take more.
      I don't think you're driven by an intention to do good either.

      Granted, there's a big difference in terms of power.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
        So much hate towards Google that people rally against it even when they're actually doing something good.
        They do good and they do bad. For example Project Zero and GSoC are good while Android and Workspace are bad. The real problem is that Google is too big, you can't avoid their services if you want to stay competitive.

        In my case it's not hate either, it's lack of trust and for good reason. It starts with rewriting URLs to hide tracking on the most basic products like Google Search and Google Workspace and it just gets worse from there on out. This is a thing of the past, but pretty damn unethical if you ask me. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8068961.html

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post

          They do good and they do bad. For example Project Zero and GSoC are good while Android and Workspace are bad. The real problem is that Google is too big, you can't avoid their services if you want to stay competitive.

          In my case it's not hate either, it's lack of trust and for good reason. It starts with rewriting URLs to hide tracking on the most basic products like Google Search and Google Workspace and it just gets worse from there on out. This is a thing of the past, but pretty damn unethical if you ask me. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8068961.html
          I'm fine with "they do good and they do bad". I think this particular initiative won't be bad. It may completely fall flat on its face, but I don't think it'll be bad.

          Comment


          • #25
            Google Proposes "Allowlist, Blocklist, Parent, and Controller" Framework For Dealing With Everything

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by vladpetric View Post

              I'm fine with "they do good and they do bad". I think this particular initiative won't be bad. It may completely fall flat on its face, but I don't think it'll be bad.
              Yeah I guess some are taking it a bit far -.-

              I agree that this initiative is good.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post

                I don't think you're driven by an intention to do good either.

                Granted, there's a big difference in terms of power.
                Yes, you don't think, on that we can agree.

                For a rational human being, it would be more desirable and beneficial to be a regular individual in a proper world than a billionaire in the sorry excuse of a world we have today.

                I don't deny that all rational human actions are ultimately self-serving in nature. I'd just argue there are degrees of rationality and efficiency, and taking more than you give is not the optimal solution for neither individual or collective well-being.

                Googul is one of the most evil corporations out there, so evil it cannot even be open about it, like many corporations of their caliber are, and in fact it spends quite a lot of effort to conceal it, more than any other entity of its kind. I dare say making money is not even its ultimate goal, just the means to an end that is far worse.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by ddriver View Post

                  Yes, you don't think, on that we can agree.

                  For a rational human being, it would be more desirable and beneficial to be a regular individual in a proper world than a billionaire in the sorry excuse of a world we have today.

                  I don't deny that all rational human actions are ultimately self-serving in nature. I'd just argue there are degrees of rationality and efficiency, and taking more than you give is not the optimal solution for neither individual or collective well-being.

                  Googul is one of the most evil corporations out there, so evil it cannot even be open about it, like many corporations of their caliber are, and in fact it spends quite a lot of effort to conceal it, more than any other entity of its kind. I dare say making money is not even its ultimate goal, just the means to an end that is far worse.
                  That's just circular hate, honestly.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by vladpetric View Post

                    That's just circular hate, honestly.
                    Well, we can't all make eloquent, factually substantiated and persuasive arguments like you can.

                    I feel inclined to note that the above statement was sarcasm, because I have a feeling you might not get it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by ddriver View Post

                      Well, we can't all make eloquent, factually substantiated and persuasive arguments like you can.

                      I feel inclined to note that the above statement was sarcasm, because I have a feeling you might not get it.
                      Burden of proof is typically on the person making a claim. If you're saying that Google is one of the most evil corporations out there, you should probably come up with a reasonable metric/proof for that. Just repeating your hate over and over again is not an argument.

                      Also, sarcasm directed at the opponent is generally not humor. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ny-think-again (essentially people who are a******s like it, because if the opponent responds to the attack they can immediately retort with "you're humorless").

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X