Federal contractor alters 'thousands' of iPads for secure government use

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Supposedly, Apple refuses to share their OS code, although this might change under Cook.

    Why do you think this might change under Cook? Or are you just throwing this possibility out there?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 33

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kevinneal View Post



    You can disable the cameras using configuration profiles, why bother hacking the hardware?


     


    Because that which is done by software can be undone by software. Or rather by wiping it. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 33

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Because the government doesn't generally allow software solutions to problems like that. They assume the worst case that the software can be hacked to re-enable the camera. If you remove the camera, the risk is eliminated.



    As to the warranty issue, there are a couple of solutions:



    1. The cameras can be removed and stored. If there's a problem, they can replace the camera and still get warranty service (unless they damaged it).



    2. Or perhaps they've calculated the risk of failure and simply added a percentage to the government price that's sufficient to allow THEM to replace the defective ones without going through Apple's warranty service.



    3. They keep a small stock of spares. If one breaks, they fix it themselves, reinstall the camera, and sell it on eBay. There are service centers that repair iPads and iPhones reasonably inexpensively, so there's no reason they can't do it.


     


    1. Nope. Read the terms. It's pretty clear that once someone cracks the iPad case without approval it's game over.


     


    3. No way would data security protocols allow anything that might have info on it to be resold. Shredd it, melt it etc.but not resellit. Not it there is even a one in a zillion chance someone could pull anything off the drives etc

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 33

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    Supposedly, Apple refuses to share their OS code, although this might change under Cook.



     


    Highly unlikely. Their code is basically all they have going for them. Lose exclusivity to it and they might as well close the doors. Samsung etc would be able to clone their design AND software and iPad, etc would become generic terms for tablets, smartphones and so on.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 33
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Great opportunity for a company to get ridiculous profit from government since the devices would no longer be supported by the manufacturer... And how would these devices be useful without wireless communication? They're loaded up with documents and custom software for single purpose use?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 33


    From the Urban Dictionary:


     


    Unpossible - Even more impossible than impossible. Quite possibly the most impossiblest thing in the world.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 33
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    charlituna wrote: »
    1. Nope. Read the terms. It's pretty clear that once someone cracks the iPad case without approval it's game over.

    3. No way would data security protocols allow anything that might have info on it to be resold. Shredd it, melt it etc.but not resellit. Not it there is even a one in a zillion chance someone could pull anything off the drives etc

    1 isn't necessarily a problem - if the contractor gets themselves approved as an Apple authorized repair facility.

    3 is a valid issue. It depends on whether they actually load confidential information on the devices or not.
    dysamoria wrote: »
    Great opportunity for a company to get ridiculous profit from government since the devices would no longer be supported by the manufacturer... And how would these devices be useful without wireless communication? They're loaded up with documents and custom software for single purpose use?

    That's the whole point. They will be single purpose machines.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 33
    kdarling wrote: »

    On the CACI website, they write that they "<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">neuter iPads, for example, by physically removing any components that elicit communications, signals, or detectable energy-based output. "   Sounds like they make them TEMPEST safe.</span>

    Doubt it - making something TEMPEST safe takes a lot more work than removing the wifi and bluetooth chips. It takes shielding the remaining components, I imagine by the time you're done it wouldn't look remotely like an iPad anymore.

    This is just for facilities with no-camera or no-wifi rules.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 33
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,740member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    Highly unlikely. Their code is basically all they have going for them. Lose exclusivity to it and they might as well close the doors. Samsung etc would be able to clone their design AND software and iPad, etc would become generic terms for tablets, smartphones and so on.



    Samsung reps have already been given iOS code. Apple turned if over by order of an Australian Court in 2011. They may have to do so again with the most recent version if a Korean Court makes the same order. No legitimate international company would copy Apple's code for their own product.


     


    That wouldn't rule out the Chinese of course. They copy everyone. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 33
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bluefish86 View Post





    Doubt it - making something TEMPEST safe takes a lot more work than removing the wifi and bluetooth chips. It takes shielding the remaining components, I imagine by the time you're done it wouldn't look remotely like an iPad anymore.



    This is just for facilities with no-camera or no-wifi rules.


     


    Yes, I agree.   I had to run before finishing another sentence where I wondered about that odd claim that they remove any parts with "detectable energy-based output" .  Doesn't make any sense.  They'd have to shield or remove the CPU, LCD and touchscreen.  Unless perhaps they just have a very high limit for "detectable"  ;-)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 33
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Samsung reps have already been given iOS code. Apple turned if over by order of an Australian Court in 2011. They may have to do so again with the most recent version if a Korean Court makes the same order. No legitimate international company would copy Apple's code for their own product.

    That wouldn't rule out the Chinese of course. They copy everyone. 

    Really? So Samsung just accidentally ended up with a tablet that looks so much like Apple's that their own attorneys can't tell the difference. No, a Korean company would never copy anything.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 33
    jjarojjaro Posts: 29member
    charlituna wrote: »
    And rendered them all warranty less via third party modification. If they did them literally themselves

    What's more logical is that this company work as a middle man to arrange for Apple to build a guaranteed amount of units that just don't have cameras etc installed.

    Agreed, that would make more sense. This would be so awesome, too. I'm in the Navy, and having iPads on the ship available for official work would be super cool and convenient! Some people carry them around now, but they aren't allowed to bring them into secured spaces.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 33

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bluefish86 View Post





    Doubt it - making something TEMPEST safe takes a lot more work than removing the wifi and bluetooth chips. It takes shielding the remaining components, I imagine by the time you're done it wouldn't look remotely like an iPad anymore.



    This is just for facilities with no-camera or no-wifi rules.


    Depends on if you want TEMPEST 1 or 2; the latter permits the use of FCC Class B certified equipment if secure installation guidelines are followed.


     


    Cheers

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.