Google's flub: Do we have a Web monoculture too?

This was originally posted at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

Google tagged the Web as malware on Saturday and was rendered useless for about an hour. The search giant blamed the incident on human error.

Was the ruckus over Google's screw-up overblown? Possibly. But to many folks, Google is the window to the Internet. If folks can't google something, they are simply lost. That fact alone probably qualifies Google as a Web monoculture, although it may be a touch premature to make a definitive call. However, Google touches everything, and frankly that's a bit worrisome.

In security circles, monoculture is a key concept. Roughly speaking, whenever a technology--Windows, for instance--is dominant it becomes a big target to attack. You attack the target and wreak a lot of havoc. Windows is a monoculture. If Windows is wrecked, the damage is far and wide just because of market share.

Here are Google's results for a search on 'Google' Saturday morning.

(Credit: Google, via Friendlybit.com)

ZDNet blogger Ryan Naraine in his Google coverage on Saturday foreshadowed the monoculture question. He said the Google incident "provides a harsh lesson on our total dependence on a single vendor/search provider." Is Google a monoculture? If Google isn't a Web monoculture today, it soon will be. Google is becoming a search monopoly, and it can extend that dominance into other areas. Just look at the reaction to its malware screw-up. There was one hour when we couldn't use Google--and everyone noticed quickly. If Ask.com--or Live Search for that matter--had a similar malware tagging glitch, the hubbub wouldn't have existed.

What's worrisome is that monocultures exist everywhere. The goal for every IT vendor is to become your monoculture. Windows is a monoculture. In enterprise software, there's SAP and Oracle--that's a duopoly, but depending on the company, one of those two suppliers runs the business. Cisco Systems is a networking monoculture. Pick an industry or technology, and there's some form of lock-in.

And the pressure for enterprises to become a monoculture is immense. How many times have you heard some CIO yapping about standardizing on one technology because it's allegedly more cost effective? When it comes to vendors, they want one throat to choke. The downside: what you save in costs and complexity you lose in immunity.

Without diversification, companies are at risk. In this respect, all companies should diversify a little. Say Windows is attacked and effectively wiped out. The all-Windows shop is wiped out too. But if that company is 80 percent Windows, 15 percent open source, and 5 percent Mac, suddenly the prospects look better.

If you take this argument to the Web, the implications are clear. We should all diversify from our Google habit at least a little. Ditto if you're a small business totally reliant on Salesforce.com. In fact, any technology supplier--Web, SaaS, on-premise or otherwise--that represents more than 90 percent of your infrastructure portfolio needs some competition.

The monoculture issue is a lot like a pure-bred dog with health issues. Take golden retrievers or black labs. They are popular dogs. And they are bred too much. They have bad hips, arthritis, and a host of other ailments. If you want a healthy dog, you get a mutt. Your IT infrastructure should be a little bit of mutt too. Diversify your apps and providers whenever possible even if it's only to keep the big dogs honest.

Perhaps the reaction to Google's bad weekend was overblown, but it's always a good time to ponder how monoculture affects your IT infrastructure.

[PhaseDMA]

Hello. Anyone home? You can click through the warning.

People that couldn't figure out the issue shouldn't have been using their computers in the first place. I mean really. Then throw in the people that click through these things every time they see it and was the internet really "broken"?

Did any of the people moaning actually virtually have no internet because of this? No. Their all smart people. Techy people. What percentage of the internet users were effected for 1 hour that didn't know something was messed up? I doubt it was a very large number.

[sharmajunior]

FYI....some of us couldn't get past the warning. It took us into an endless loop from a search result to Google's home page over and over and over and over.......

[vidanuevatx]

If you think people who can't figure out a particular error should not be using computers, then you badly misunderstand people or computers or both. There's no need for you to be so proud. I could point out each of your grammatical or spelling errors and say that you shouldn't write, but that would be no more true than your statement that others should not use computers.

[king_geore]

Took about a minute to realize it was a Google issue so I switched to MS Live Search. If anyone else could not figure that out then they should not have a computer on the WEB.

[sting7k]

It wouldn't let me click through the warnings. However LIVE search was working just fine and I got by for the hour without my world crashing down around me.

[PhaseDMA]

Yep. That's right. I shouldn't write. Thanks for being so insightful.

I suppose I don't actually care to do anything beyond get my point across. I must have forgot I was writing a article for the NY Times. My mistake. I thought I was posting a comment on a website.

[c4s2k3]

For the record, the pages Google returned to me during that time did not include a link I could use to "click through" as you put it. I know enough to copy and paste the address provided in the Google warning page but there was no "link" to anything other than pages about various security related data. Yes, I knew there was a screw up, and yes, I knew how to get around it, but none of that negates the point this article makes regarding the general public's growing dependence on a single source for access to information on the internet, and the implications of that dependence.

[Kesteral]

I disagree. A Monoculture implies that you are tied exclusively to one system, and it would be very difficult to change to another system should the Monoculture come under attack. This is not the case with internet search. Should Google be attacked and shut down for an extended time, it is a very easy thing to switch over to another internet search site. They may not be a good as Google, but they are more than good enough to get the job done.

[john55440]

Ditto for being overly dependent on Google's Cloud.

I want my application software on my computer; for privacy, security, performance, reliability, and control reasons. In addition, at a time when personal computers have massive amounts of computing power, it's silly to use them as Dumb Internet Terminals.

[PSCSmoke]

WOW, the real question is, "Is CNET too dependant on Google?" Everybody is chiming in on this one like one-trick ponies. There are many other monocultures/competition outside of biGevil, M$. I didn't even experience a search problem, and for a lot of browsers out there, the search bar searches multiple sources...and as stated higher up, if you maintain standards and backup your data moving to a new internet monoservice isn't that big of a deal.

[divide_by_zero]

Hmmm, I was always afraid to Google 'Google.' Visions of an infinite loop that tore apart the very fabric of space-time plagued my mind as my cursor hovered over the search button.

[jonytk]

To all the noobs who can't type hotmail.com and have to google hotmail and click the link to actually read the mail. You deserve it, i wish this were all the weekend!!
L0L

[t8]

Google may dominate search but people can change whenever they want. It is much harder to do than Microsoft Windows which you get given to you when you buy a PC.

People choose Google and people are forced to use Windows. That says a lot to me.

[spacydog]

Oh please. People choose Windows just like they choose Google. Macs are being preferred these days in some respects due to their coolness factor and ease of use. Linux isn't because they never really produced a cool and usable desktop OS. People choose Windows because it works with millions of applications so overall leads as a practical OS to have.

[t8]

Ha ha. You answered it for me. People choose Windows because it works with millions of applications so overall leads as a practical OS to have. You don't need Google because millions of aps run off Google. You can switch Google in less than 5 seconds, yet people increasingly use them.