Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

tales.fromprod.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 194 posts

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#81

Post by jchw »

insanitybit wrote: post #77
saghm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no contradiction here; it's totally possible for a company to make a feature configurable so that it doesn't block their competitors but also intentionally design and market it in a way that's misleading in ways that will lead to their competitors getting blocked. When we're talking about a company as large as Google and a product with as much market share as Chrome, I don't think it's that crazy to think tha…

If the argument is that Google has built a product that encourages use of Google products, of course. The question is whether that's some sort of trickery or odd or bad. "Google offers Managed Chrome as a service" hardly seems controversial to me.

Google offering managed chrome as a service is a completely sensible thing. The problem is that they are nearly a browser monopoly, and making Google Workspace work in such a way with Google Chrome feels to me like anti-competitive practices. If we didn't have one giant megacorp that did both things, it would be different.

Of course, so far the only workable model for web browsers is having a giant megacorp fund their development and maintenance. Which is a huge issue, and we will do basically nothing about it.

(Don't get me wrong. I have high hopes for Ladybird and even Servo, but they may come too late if effectively-proprietary features force most users to stick to Chrome anyways.)

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#82

Post by edoceo »

chmod775 wrote: post #8

It appears website developers desperately want to return to a world where browsers actively pretend to be another browser*. Want to check for DBSC? Enjoy not knowing whether the browser vendor decided to just roll a simple software implementation. Nothing good comes from browser detection over feature detection anyways. It's time to do away with user-agents and other overt identifying markers, and if we're still not…

What is the process to aggressively stub features? Does that mean pushing patches to Firefox and/or Ladybird and/or Servo?

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#83

Post by jm4 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #48
ktm5j wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's their organization. They are allowed to make decisions about what software their employees use. I'm a die-hard Mozilla fan, but I don't find this unreasonable.

The problem is Google appears to label this as a security feature. I'm fine with the feature existing, but it should say something like "require Chrome" or "block Firefox" not "require a secure browser (wink wink we actually mean Chrome)"

It is a security feature. In a corporate environment, you generally don't want users installing their own software. If it's a remote access thing from a personal device, you still generally want to be able to establish some kind of baseline. I don't like Chrome - not even a little bit - but I will admit that they have a pretty damn good security track record. I'd rather my remote users be on there than some crusty Firefox installation with 40 extensions. Organizations have the right to make these decisions when they are the ones that own the data. For example, when I was still in that world, we required personal phones to be encrypted to access corporate email. This was when a lot of people would still walk around with devices without a pin. People complained, but it was non-negotiable.

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#84

Post by charcircuit »

jchw wrote: post #60
ktm5j wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's their organization. They are allowed to make decisions about what software their employees use. I'm a die-hard Mozilla fan, but I don't find this unreasonable.

Note that making lock-in features like this effectively proprietary to the Chrome browser is only possible because of the fact that it's the same company making Google Workspace and Google Chrome. I absolutely see many problems with this and you really ought to as well.

>only possible

Two different companies can partner together and release features in both of the company's interests.

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#85

Post by subscribed »

SoftTalker wrote: post #25
dijit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it shouldn’t be an option. Some IT departments just see a “more secure” checkbox and will always check it, even if it doesn’t make sense holistically- sometimes compliance incentivises (or forces) this behaviour. A common example is forcing intune/device enrolment for mobile devices (including ipads)- but not for the infinitely less secure laptops: because no such endpoint enforcement checkbox exists

Using a maintained and up-to-date browser is a reasonable requirement for an IT department (should be for anyone really). Would you suggest they should be allowing IE6 just because a user might prefer it? Of course Google is going to suggest using Chrome, if they detect that the browser might be out of date.

Strawman argument. Firefox is maintained and up to date browser.

Why did you even compare it to IE6, out of the curiosity?

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

hbn wrote: post #17
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #14

I use Google as a secondary search and as of roughly last week it gives me a captcha every time I try to do a search. That had never been the case before.

For a few years now Google has given me a captcha whenever my VPN is on (Private Internet Access)

That one has been a well-known thing for a decade if not more; it's not just Google, half the Internet will start throwing captchas or denying access once you connect via a VPN (specifically "VPN" as in one of the services you pay to avoid location-based discrimination of media streaming platforms).

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#87

Post by vel0city »

saghm wrote: post #75
ktm5j wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this. Google is obviously going to focus on security testing with their own browser. It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default. There is zero problem here guys.

> It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default. Can you elaborate on why you think that Firefox is inherently insecure in some way for accessing Google workspaces? > It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this. If that were the only metric, then no monopoly would ever be broken up for any…

> Can you elaborate on why you think that Firefox is inherently insecure in some way for accessing Google workspaces?

Allowing users running who knows what version of Firefox (or any "non-validated"/unmanaged browser, not necessarily just Firefox) browser running who knows what extensions can be pretty unsafe. There are lots of malicious extensions out there that are stupid simple to install.

In the Workspace world, Chrome can be configured and enforced to have certain kinds of settings applied. Only allowing certain extensions. Ensure certain version ranges. That sort of thing.

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#88

Post by rabeener »

saghm wrote: post #75
ktm5j wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this. Google is obviously going to focus on security testing with their own browser. It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default. There is zero problem here guys.

> It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default. Can you elaborate on why you think that Firefox is inherently insecure in some way for accessing Google workspaces? > It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this. If that were the only metric, then no monopoly would ever be broken up for any…

I don’t think anyone is saying Firefox is inherently bad. What I’m reading, and what I believe, is Google just has a better product for secure enterprise browsing because of the controls they offer

The browser is where basically all your work happens, especially as a Workspace customer—think about how much of your work is done in the browser. That makes it a huge, attractive attack surface. And attackers don't even need a browser vulnerability; they can just convince an employee to install a malicious browser extension, and suddenly they can steal passwords, watch everything you do, and hijack your sessions on other sites.

So security teams need visibility into what's happening in the browser. Google does a decent—not great—job of providing this through Managed Chrome: centralized logs, control over which extensions can be installed, even alerts when someone reuses their Workspace password elsewhere.

Firefox, Safari, and most others don't offer these business controls, which means a security team allowing them is flying blind. And a blind security team is gonna have a bad time… mmmkay.

On support: someone mentioned using Firefox to verify their app works across browsers—god's work, truly. But not every vendor does that, so IT ends up fielding "this site just isn't working" tickets that turn out to be browser compatibility issues. Fewer supported browsers means a smaller surface to support and a better experience all around.

This can't be enforced where you're not using your corporate identity. A Dropbox account on your personal email is still accessible from any browser.

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#89

Post by [deleted] »

redwall_hp wrote: post #50
trey-jones wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to have a monopoly to be monopolistic.

The Sherman Act says that any action by an individual, or conspiracy of a group of individuals, to "restrain trade" or seek a monopoly is illegal. Monopolies aren't a prerequisite for antitrust action, they're the failure state when you should have acted sooner.

[deleted]

Re: Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

#90

Post by hnlmorg »

jm4 wrote: post #83
cmeacham98 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Google appears to label this as a security feature. I'm fine with the feature existing, but it should say something like "require Chrome" or "block Firefox" not "require a secure browser (wink wink we actually mean Chrome)"

It is a security feature. In a corporate environment, you generally don't want users installing their own software. If it's a remote access thing from a personal device, you still generally want to be able to establish some kind of baseline. I don't like Chrome - not even a little bit - but I will admit that they have a pretty damn good security track record. I'd rather my remote users be on there than some crusty Fi…

Literally the only reason they can argue Chrome is more secure than Firefox in that kind of setting is because they can Google can push Google Chrome profiles via Google Workspaces but they’ve never working with Mozilla to create an interop for Firefox.

When Microsoft did this with Windows, AD, and Internet Explore, it was deemed a breach of anti-trust laws. The question is whether such laws apply to Google given they don’t have a monopoly in the identity services domain.

If you’d asked me 5 years ago, I’d have said “no way”, but recent judgements with Apple and their App Store lead me to think there is still hope. Regardless of how remote that might be.

Post reply on HN