Insufficient Samsung security forces UK military communications project to switch to modif...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 5,006administrator
    broadbean said:
    replacing insecure Android devices
    I totally get why unsecured Android devices an feel "insecure"!   :p
    in·se·cure
    ˌinsəˈkyo͝or/
    adjective
    1. 1
      (of a person) not confident or assured; uncertain and anxious.
      "a top model who is notoriously insecure about her looks"
    2
    (of a thing) not firm or set; unsafe.
  • Reply 22 of 31
    saltyzip said:
    If an mod phone talked to Apple servers it's not secure, so if BT has implemented such a solution without apples involvement it will be dead on arrival.


    So, BT can't block selected LTE traffic to Apple servers?

    Keys changed? OS changed? They'll just change the handset... Those are the military, dude... They don't depend on poor man's open source...
    cornchip
  • Reply 23 of 31
    broadbean said:
    replacing insecure Android devices
    I totally get why unsecured Android devices an feel "insecure"!   :p
    Unsecured? Really? As in, not fastened to a table leg with a rope?
  • Reply 24 of 31
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/


    LOL, take it from folks "in the biz," even the terrorists teach their members to use iPhones for better security than Android.  Law enforcement has admitted, e.g., San Bernadino shooters, that when the run up against an iPhone, they usually are stymied in getting info.  With Android, it's all smiles.  Maybe you are trying to make yourself feel better, but there is no doubt that  people who buy iPhones each year get better security and hugely better privacy than the folks who purchase phones based on the Android system. 
    lostkiwicornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 31
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,152member
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/
    And you're quoting that tech smut and propaganda rag ZDNET?

    Can someone please escort this troll out of here, he's stinking up the joint...
    lostkiwicornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 31
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/

    We are educated. Which is why we know Android is a joke for security. You linking an article without context doesn't change that.

    First off, those aren't "Android phones" that a normal person might buy, like an LG or Samsung. They run highly modified versions of Android but are stripped of much of what normal users associate with Android or any smartphone. They then install their own custom software to replicate functionality that we get from "stock" Apps. They are completely and 100% locked down. The only reason they use Android is because it's a free OS with the source code provided for you to allow you to customize it how you like.

    Calling these phones Android phones would be like calling the Presidents limo a "Chevy" just because the base platform happens to be a Cadillac.

    Android that the general public gets with the phones they buy are a joke compared to iOS, and will never match the security of iOS. 
    I agree w most of your comments except for your limo example. You got the references backwards. The platform is actually thought to be a Chevy heavy duty 2500+ pickup.  Upon that is a custom Kevlar ceramic etc etc armored body styled to look like a Cadillac.
    cornchip
  • Reply 27 of 31
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/
    This is the perfect example of fake news. Zdnet is one the world’s worst tech tabloids with a definite anti-Apple editorial bent. You picked the wrong source to spread your FUD.
    It's probably not ALL made up. Still as someone pointed out these aren't off the shelf Android handsets either. 

    http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/53806/digital-id/secure-smartphones.html

    The guy behind the ultra-secure Tor Phone doesn't trust either Google, Apple or their app stores. 

    "A closed source platform, such as Apple's mobile operating system, is at much greater risk of being compelled to deploy software backdoors, he added. "I think the best argument against backdoors is that they are technically impossible to deploy at all, due to the security properties of the system and people's ability to remove or avoid the backdoor. That argument is stronger for open source than it is for closed source."

    Perry also worried aloud about targeted backdoors delivered to specific users.

    "The iOS App Store is at a significant disadvantage there even compared to Google Play," he told us (ArsTechnica). "Each iOS app is re-encrypted specifically for the user with Apple's DRM, making it technically impossible to verify that the package you installed matches the official one."

    He said that Apple has "created the perfect platform for delivering targeted backdoors to specific users. I don't like banking on iOS for those reasons."

    And Google?

    In order to solve the Android security mess, Google is taking steps that hurt user freedom, and make Android vulnerable to compelled backdoors, Perry argued.

    The fragmentation of the Android ecosystem into multiple OEMs, who distribute their own versions of the operating system, has resulted in rampant insecurity. Without financial incentives to push security updates to users' phones, OEMs by and large abandon users to their fate. Under pressure from many quarters to solve this problem, Google is working to improve Android security, but Perry criticised Google's release and development process as increasingly opaque.

    Android platform is effectively moving to a 'Look but don't touch' Shared Source Model that Microsoft tried in the early 2000s," Perry wrote in his blog post. "However, instead of being explicit about this, Google appears to be doing it surreptitiously.



    That article is just as ridiculous as the zdnet one above. 
    At least that quotes came from ArsTechnica. That's an improvement isn't it? 
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/
    This is the perfect example of fake news. Zdnet is one the world’s worst tech tabloids with a definite anti-Apple editorial bent. You picked the wrong source to spread your FUD.
    It's probably not ALL made up. Still as someone pointed out these aren't off the shelf Android handsets either. 

    http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/53806/digital-id/secure-smartphones.html

    The guy behind the ultra-secure Tor Phone doesn't trust either Google, Apple or their app stores. 

    "A closed source platform, such as Apple's mobile operating system, is at much greater risk of being compelled to deploy software backdoors, he added. "I think the best argument against backdoors is that they are technically impossible to deploy at all, due to the security properties of the system and people's ability to remove or avoid the backdoor. That argument is stronger for open source than it is for closed source."

    Perry also worried aloud about targeted backdoors delivered to specific users.

    "The iOS App Store is at a significant disadvantage there even compared to Google Play," he told us (ArsTechnica). "Each iOS app is re-encrypted specifically for the user with Apple's DRM, making it technically impossible to verify that the package you installed matches the official one."

    He said that Apple has "created the perfect platform for delivering targeted backdoors to specific users. I don't like banking on iOS for those reasons."

    And Google?

    In order to solve the Android security mess, Google is taking steps that hurt user freedom, and make Android vulnerable to compelled backdoors, Perry argued.

    The fragmentation of the Android ecosystem into multiple OEMs, who distribute their own versions of the operating system, has resulted in rampant insecurity. Without financial incentives to push security updates to users' phones, OEMs by and large abandon users to their fate. Under pressure from many quarters to solve this problem, Google is working to improve Android security, but Perry criticised Google's release and development process as increasingly opaque.

    Android platform is effectively moving to a 'Look but don't touch' Shared Source Model that Microsoft tried in the early 2000s," Perry wrote in his blog post. "However, instead of being explicit about this, Google appears to be doing it surreptitiously.



    That article is just as ridiculous as the zdnet one above. 
    At least that quotes came from ArsTechnica. That's an improvement isn't it? 
    Not really!   Ars can be extremely biased as they seem to have a desire to promote odd mix of politics.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    gatorguy said:

    http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/53806/digital-id/secure-smartphones.html


    "A closed source platform, such as Apple's mobile operating system, is at much greater risk of being compelled to deploy software backdoors, he added. "I think the best argument against backdoors is that they are technically impossible to deploy at all, due to the security properties of the system and people's ability to remove or avoid the backdoor. That argument is stronger for open source than it is for closed source."

    Perry also worried aloud about targeted backdoors delivered to specific users.

    "The iOS App Store is at a significant disadvantage there even compared to Google Play," he told us (ArsTechnica). "Each iOS app is re-encrypted specifically for the user with Apple's DRM, making it technically impossible to verify that the package you installed matches the official one."

    He said that Apple has "created the perfect platform for delivering targeted backdoors to specific users. I don't like banking on iOS for those reasons."


    Well that was a fun read - if a bit mischievous. 
    The first para is contradictory and the conclusion ré Open Source is anything but reassuring or even provable.  
    The rest hangs on 'Trust but Verify' which in the real world is almost impossible outside of a full time job and an intricate understanding of all theoretical and technical issues. 
    I had to laugh at the last sentence - I was reminded of an occasion when I accidentally tried logging into my bank whilst browsing with Tor which resulted in my account being frozen because of fraud prevention measures...it took some explaining. But then I realised, not that sort of banking. 
    It boils down to trust and accepting Apple at face value for their very publicly-stated promises on user security. The stronger the commitment, the more there is to lose if they are found to be wanting. 
    ration alcornchip
  • Reply 29 of 31
    According to Gartner, Samsung Knox is the most secure smartphone platorm in the world http://pocketnow.com/2016/04/14/samsung-knox-most-secure-mobile-device-platform. NSA approves Samsung Knox for use by TOP SECRET g-men http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/21/nsa_spooks_to_spy_on_the_galaxy/
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 30 of 31
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 5,006administrator
    PaulPeter said:
    According to Gartner, Samsung Knox is the most secure smartphone platorm in the world http://pocketnow.com/2016/04/14/samsung-knox-most-secure-mobile-device-platform. NSA approves Samsung Knox for use by TOP SECRET g-men http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/21/nsa_spooks_to_spy_on_the_galaxy/
    Utterly and totally irrelevant to this article. Different agency, different country, article is a year old.

    Also, NSA, DOD phones and tablets are all heavily modified by the time they get to handlers, so this isn't an "out of the box" situation for either Apple or Samsung.
    edited January 2017 gatorguySoliration alwatto_cobrabadmonk
  • Reply 31 of 31
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    saltyzip said:
    MnMark said:
    A secure version of Android. That's funny!
    Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

    Read this to educate ones self:
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/
    Cheap iKnockoffs running an OS created by an ad company for the sole purpose to collect user data is more secure than a real iPhone....right.

    you have fun with your Huawei reporting back to China and Goog. 
    cornchipwatto_cobrabadmonk
Sign In or Register to comment.