This is not a Google-wide thing… this is from Google’s Context-Aware Access product, which is configurable in Google Workspace environments. OP should direct their ire at their corporate IT or infosec team.
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
Of course Google is going to suggest using Chrome, if they detect that the browser might be out of date.
The issue presented doesn’t seem to be “an up to date browser check” it seems to be a “is it latest chrome” check, which is a very different thing.
If the organization is indeed enabling a specific check for Chrome that seems a little over the top but they're the ones supporting their users and if they want to make their life easier by only dealing with one browser that's their decision to make. It's like saying that everyone has to use Windows, or a specific line of laptops, or any other standardization to simplify the support workload.
I don’t see why I should give affordances of good will to Google here.
They’re not stupid, they know that this is an effective lever to further cement full-fat chrome as the default browser for the internet.
Why did you even compare it to IE6, out of the curiosity?
You can make Firefox pass CAA if you want. You take the Chrome "SecureConnect Reporting" (Context-Aware Access) plugin, port it to Firefox with some light changes, and you can report whatever you want to CAA.
But who outside of Google is running exclusively ChromeOS? My impression from looking at the JS part is that it's mostly obfuscation, with the possible exception of ChromeOS.
I feel like the secure connect client being closed source would have been an effective deterrent 5 years ago, but these days everyone's throwing LLMs at everything. So an attack that would have taken effort doesn't present nearly as much of a barrier anymore. At least as long as there remain some platforms that don't enforce full attestation...
I just don't think that matters much. CAA is policy enforcement, it is not a full MDM solution, nor is it antimalware.
But someone thinks it is, which is harmful to them on top of being an annoyance to everyone else.
I think Chromebooks are pretty common in school settings
Your corporate serfdom is not in question, but I disagree with that notion too.
There is zero problem here guys.
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 reason (which I guess is the way regulation seems to work nowadays, but at least in theory it's supposed to be possible for it to happen sometimes). The idea that using market pressure from one product a company sells to squeeze out competition in another is totally fine as long as the first product is paid is not a premise I agree with.
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.
If you don't want your user to run whatever version with whatever extension you can do that.
This feature supposedly ensures (or at least pushes users to) only the approved browsers running approved configurations are allowed to log in to the company's instances of Workspace.
What if a company decides that their preferred browser is Firefox. Can you use this feature to only enable logins from Firefox? Or is it only for Chrome?
You can still use Firefox with Workspace though, but if you want the management features of Chrome Enterprise you need to use Chrome Enterprise. Firefox itself just doesn't even begin to offer the same kind of endpoint verification.
With Firefox today, how would a web app have any serious clue the client was running approved versions of Firefox configured in approved ways on approved hardware with approved OS configurations? It wouldn't, and I take it Firefox wouldn't bother implementing that kind of technology. Which is fine, but if the customer wants to be able to ensure a certain kind of policy compliance that's just not possible when using Firefox. And that's just as much if not more of the ball being in Firefox's court as it is Google Workspace's. There's nothing for Workspace to even interface with at all from the Firefox side to ensure policy compliance.
Its like asking "can I print on this printer with this app?" when the app itself doesn't even have a concept of printing things. The basic underlying feature set just doesn't even exist, before we're even talking about some form of platform compatibility.
But how many companies are running Workspace + Windows with on-prem AD? I suspect that number is shrinking pretty rapidly. You can do it with InTune as well, but it starts to get real messy if your users aren't on Windows or you have non-windows endpoints.
If you're a mac shop, on google workspace, and using something like JamF (or even Intune+EntraID), you are stuck deploying .plist files to each endpoint, you don't get compliance reporting back, and you lose a ton of visibility.
These are all things that don't matter to each individual user, but are hugely important to IT/security in the company, and Firefox unfortunately just doesn't have any centralized management platform for it.
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.
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.)
But if either side is close to a monopoly, both cannot be part of the same company, even if that means breaking an existing company up.
I may be missing something because I feel like this specific point has been reiterated a few times in this thread but I haven't seen it actually rebuked directly.
Firstly, some Chrome features (like Chrome Remote Desktop) are delivered partly as extensions. This does not make them not features of Chrome. It makes them features that happen to be delivered in some part as extensions.
Doesn't matter. Let's say Endpoint Verification is not a Chrome feature. Thankfully, we don't actually need that for our argument. The crux of this argument is simple:
- Google Workspace depends on proprietary Chrome features,
- Chrome has specific proprietary features designed to support Google Workspace (and other proprietary Google offerings.)
What is the proprietary features I am referring to? Well, I'd just say "Endpoint Verification", but we can go a layer deeper. In order to implement Endpoint Verification, we need privileged, private extension APIs. These APIs are not for use with non-Google extensions, and Endpoint Verification uses enterprise.reportingPrivate.
You can disagree that it is a problem that Google Chrome and Google Workspace are developing proprietary integrations with each-other, that's your prerogative, but I'm not humoring this gaslighting attempt.
For the most part, Mozilla could build out Endpoint Verification (and it supports a subset of the APIs anyways). Similarly, there could be a web proposal for device attestation APIs that are more generalized, etc, which I think would be great.
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.
Almost nobody outside of the minority of internet users fighting against chromium hegemony cares about Firefox. Firefox lost its casual users years ago. Hell, even most of those people sticking with it out of principle are doing it while gritting their teeth. It's been a subpar browser for a long time and the Mozilla organization kinda sucks.
Why would any for-profit enterprise waste their time or money on Firefox?
I absolutely see many problems with this and you really ought to as well.
Two different companies can partner together and release features in both of the company's interests.
Meanwhile, in our current reality, both Google and Apple have or currently are shoehorning platform level attestation into the web in various different ways, something they are mostly able to do because they have so much control over multiple major ecosystems (among platforms, browsers, web services.) Mostly, even making them "standards", which would be hilarious if it wasn't literally evil. (Apple's approach to sneaking this in is innovative, in that it technically is a hardware platform attestation mechanism, but it was sold and initially implemented as a convenience feature. That and the underlying PAT technology can be used in strictly non-evil ways, like Kagi's rather clever application.)
It's a lot of words to say that I didn't mean literally impossible, but if we're going to get pedantic then a lot of words it is.
Why wouldn't money be an incentive. If businesses are willing to pay to have locked down browser access their cloud files, and the cloud file website wants to make money by charging businesses for this feature it makes sense that they may pay a browser to develop such a feature to use with their website.
If course the reverse can also be argued, for example that Firefox supports proper adblocking.
Other way to look at it is, the company is paying for everything, and they get to make decisions based on what suits their security needs.
Those are real, practical reasons. Not just "if I do this I get to check another box".
Yes. I know. It's a pain that when you cannot do what you want to do. But it's not your laptop. It's the company's. Supporting more browsers to the same standard that I just described would take engineering resources, of which I do not have an infinite supply. And the priority goes to keeping the company secure.
Being forced to use various tools for compliance is frustrating, doubly so if it helps create a stronger monopoly position, because a monopoly position creates stagnation, which makes worse products.
But those worse products are forced on users, even when better ones start to come about.
This is the crux of my issue, Microsoft is the king of this behaviour, and they are using this a lot which is squeezing the metaphorical testicles of almost all companies in Europe.
But really, we have a couple of million enterprise end-users, some of which surely using Edge. If we as much as move a button without telling them about it three months in advance, it's the end of the world. In 10 years time, no customer has raised it.
They've kneecapped ad-blockers, when ad networks are perhaps one of the biggest causes of malware installs/page hijacking/other unwanted behaviour. I'm not sure how you can consider Chrome remotely secure in this light.
I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone.
When you outsource IT, there are many, many misaligned incentives.
How so? Bad actors buying existing extensions with large user bases then publishing a new version which does bad stuff is a pretty common pattern. It certainy seems like a reasonable concern for a corp IT department.
I figure they had a switch they could toggle and they thought no further about the tradeoffs. Because their primary concern is their own liability, not what's best for the org their contract is with.
When there are unpatched browser vulnerabilities, attackers will use ad networks to inject attack code into reputable-but-ad-laden websites. And even when there aren't unpatched vulnerabilities out there, many ad networks will happily accept scam ads, ads that trick people into downloading malware, fake download buttons and suchlike.
But if they all use Chrome, wouldn't those be really weak ad blockers?
I'm extremely intolerant to ads, so I would leave Chrome if ad blocking stopped working.
If everyone had the same attitude this would probably already be the case.
100% of security experts I know find ads annoying and know ad blockers reduce how many they see.
Same here, but only on Chrome. Firefox works fine.
Typical modern Mozilla fans, really.
Sure, which is why you should lock down the laptop. Blocking Firefox in Google Workspace seems like entirely the wrong layer for this.
People know how it ended, but don't seem to remember how it started, which is a shame.
See the whole thing with libxml2 for example, or how they started boringssl to "fix" the issues with openssl, but they run it as an internal project you cannot depend on.
But it is my craft, and to be limited to what tools I can use in my craft can decrease the value of my work, and in doing so decrease the company's productivity.
* A user intentionally leaking sensitive documents outside the corporate network
* A user installing an infected browser extension that gives attackers access to corporate resources
* A user accessing malware or ransomware which infects corporate resources.
That's on top of the cost of having the IT department having to debug issues among users with bespoke tool sets which can often interact in unintuitive ways.
There are many stupid ways that companies "optimize" costs that cost them more in the end. Standardizing the browser and extension set for data loss protection is not one of them.
You (and I) aren't that special. People who are actually irreplaceable are astonishingly rare, and unless you're one of them, employees who will gripe about things like what web browser they use are often not worth the trouble at scale.
Firms who enforce homogeneity through policy are not worth the trouble at scale.
Then go work for yourself.
If you want the security of a regular salary, you need to jump through the hoops of your employer and not expect to be able to do 'your craft' however you see fit.
And if your company has any web presence or apps, you usually can't cherry pick which browsers your customers can use. That means some portion of your company will need access to other browsers for QA purposes.
You can do additional device management to lock down the rest of the machine. You can force Chrome and restrict Safari/Firefox/etc on Mac just fine. Same for Windows.
What? Are you serious? An organization has EVERY right to enforce whatever controls they deem appropriate for their environment. Period.
We do conditional access at the Azure level, and a device that doesn't meet some compliance policies on their machine (Windows, macOS, Linux) is unable to access their corporate account until they remediate that.
> We haven’t configured, and don’t use IAP (Identity Aware Proxy) - I’ve used this before and yes that is Chrome only due to how it does device verification
> This isn’t because of “Context Aware Access” this is an enterprise only feature, and we’re on Google Workspace Business Plus