Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
Iphone Google Government Security The Military Apple

Apple, Google Diss the DoD Over Mobile Security 150 150

Julie188 writes "The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has long supported the use of BlackBerry smartphones for soldiers. It built a system called Go Mobile to provide secure communications, training, and collaboration applications to mobile soldiers. DISA recently decided to add Android and iPhone to the list of approved devices because of high demand from users. Unfortunately, this choice has become a giant pain in the flank. Why? Because both Apple and Google refuse to give DISA access to their security APIs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple, Google Diss the DoD Over Mobile Security

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Unpatriotic? (Score:2, Informative)

    by netsharc (195805) on Saturday December 11, 2010 @01:17PM (#34523948)

    It'll be convenient of Palin to forget that RIM is a Canadian company. Or are they the obedient little Labradors anyway (since the UK is the poodle).

    Also, Sergey Brin is Russian! Aaaaaa, he's a red commie!!!! But then again, Palin is neighbors with him, with she being able to see his childhood home front her front porch and what not.

    For my more serious contribution to this discussion, iPhone security is "trust that the app reviewer catches anything malicious that the developer is trying to do.". Android security is "You are going to install $APP. This app wants access to these features: [read/write SD card, see call status, read/write address book, read/send SMSes, use GPS location]. Do you want to allow all and install?", while BlackBerry security is, "This application wants these features. Choose which of them you want to allow, and which you want to deny."

    Or to be more detailed about it, for corporate BlackBerrys the admin can even do the allowing/denying, globally as well as individually for all apps, including denying the permission to the end-users to install all sorts of random apps.

    So which do you think offers more security?

  • by JonySuede (1908576) on Saturday December 11, 2010 @01:25PM (#34523994) Journal

    first google link for budgies:
    http://www.freewebs.com/budgierisa/appearance.htm [freewebs.com]

  • by arogier (1250960) * on Saturday December 11, 2010 @01:28PM (#34524008) Homepage Journal
    I don't see why the DoD can't contract Texas Instruments to make them a custom Android phone entirely in the US.
  • Re:Use the souce. (Score:5, Informative)

    by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@prR ... e.com minus berr> on Saturday December 11, 2010 @01:44PM (#34524090)

    I know this is Slashdot and all, but still:

    IMO, My device is not "secure" unless I can control the device's OS & inspect the device's hardware. My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself.

    This doesn't make it secure. It just means that if someone's made a mistake, or inserted a backdoor, you've missed it. Control != Security -- sometimes it just creates a poor illusion of security. If you don't have control, you have to trust someone to provide security.

    I write code. I read code. Yes someone can make a mistake, I can miss the mistake, but I can also fix said mistakes as soon as the mistake is discovered. You can't do that unless you can compile your own OS / Firmware. Faster Fixes == Less Vulnerability Window == More Secure. I'm not arguing that open source makes something secure, but using the source can give you more security than otherwise.

    If you argue that control != security, I will put it to you that the inability to Control = No Provable Security. Thus, Control = infinitely times more secure than uncontrollable. How secure is a device that can auto-update it's firmware without your consent?

    Depending on who it is and what their experience is, I often prefer to trust.

    Let us not forget that I am compiling the same sources that those you "often prefer to trust" are compiling; Except that I am also sure that no additional closed source code has been included in my build.

    Binary_Blob == !Trust;

Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.

Working...