Take a chill pill man. It was only obvious Blackarski was only blowing smoke, like you said, he hasn’t even tried the os out yet.

But he has a few of the fundamentals right. It is truly impossible to make an os or any program completely invulnerable to attack. Why? Because they are all written in code (obviously, some programming will be better than others but nevertheless they all have innate weaknesses). Ever met a human being that never had a cold, infection, or any medical trauma in their life? It’s in our nature to be weak but just the same, some are stronger than others.

In the end, it is impossible to build a program (as we know programming today) to be completely bullet proof.

For instance, the OS and all system files (nay, all files besides cache, update packages, and things like bookmarks) are mounted read-only. “System calls” are exposed though JS APIs. The attack surfaces pretty much amount to: bugs in the JS engine, design flaws in the security model, and the auto-update process. Granted, there may well be vulnerabilities here, but compare that to Windows in which *every single DLL* is a potential target for attack. Refusing to execute any untrusted code has dramatic implications for security.

That said, Google’s claim, as I interpret it, is about “malware” and “viruses” as we see them today. Of course, the existence of an entirely cloud-based OS underscores the increase in risks associated with cross-site scripting bugs, phishing and other purely web-based threats as we move our computing off the client. But these issues are present on any operating system with a browser, so there’s not much to talk about with respect to Chrome specifically.

I think even if Google’s claim is a bit overzealous, it’s absolutely grounded in reality more so than previous claims by MS and Apple.

You are claiming ChromeOS security is nonsense but where exactly is your actual security evaluation of ChromeOS? The word of someone who hasn’t used it or even had the OS to perform even basic security checks isn’t exactly worth much.

Essentially you’ve based your evaluation on the Mac’s rare vulnerabilities, comparing those to Windows routine vulnerabilities.

While the Mac has rare security issues, anyone existing in reality has to wonder why almost all Windows vulnerabilities end in this phrase “…and gain complete control of your computer.”

It is the worst OS in the world on security with issues often going unpatched for years. Every version trots out the same tired marketing “more secure & reliable” ad’s…Hows that worked for us so far?
(Vista’s ultra-secure…right?)

Explaining this away with it being the OS that’s the largest target, doesn’t deny the fact it IS the largest unsecured target. You have more virulent attacks on the OS, Spyware, Personal data theft, difficult or impossible to remove rootkits and a company that seems incapable of understanding that security should be built into the foundation of an OS…not patched onto it.

Based on your own statements here, your comparison is not only invalid but invalidated by your own comments about the OS in hardware devices such as hardened firewalls.

Absoluely secure?
Are you HONESTLY counting local physical access to the machine, firmware and internal files…because not even business or military systems can withstand an inside job. Waving the it’s not “Absolutely secure” banner simply invalidates your own comments. Further claiming creating a foolproof easy to use OS is impossible, sounds very much like what your really saying is it’s impossible for you.

By your comments it IS possible to make an OS and hardware secure, if designed & built from the ground up for it’s function. (What computer isn’t “hardware”?)

You have in fact, accomplished something…Confirmed a secure ChromeOS is not only possible, but examples of similar secure devices exist everywhere hardware is sold.

Thank you.