Dan,
Sounds right to me. With iOS you can't mess around with everything like you can with Android. Because of this, the mobile IT managers and support staff won't have much to do (just like with Windows).
We can't go and fire all those technicians that wouldn't have anything to do except a 15 minute deployment.
I don't believe Android per se was approved, just a specific Samsung implementation of Android. They call it a secure implementation but we'll see how long they keep it secure or how quickly they
open it up to allow it to do all the important things they have to have. We'll also see how often and quickly Samsung is able to update that Android implementation to patch all the holes it grows. iOS isn't perfect but Apple is able to patch things quicker
than any of the Android OEMs.
I have to wonder what justification they used to purchase a product with limited software support. Is Samsung (non-US company) going to provide software support or is a third party responsible
for it? Has the third-party vendor been vetted by computer security? I guess if someone wants something, all the rules go out the window.
On May 15, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "Rubin, Bruce Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RIEBA" < email@hidden> wrote:
Dan,
Perhaps I should assume that it since it seems that everyone where I work (Air Force Research Lab Information Directorate) that is involved with mobile is focused on
Android, not iOS (I don’t know a single effort involving iOS), it is because it is a greater challenge to employ in the DoD than working with iOS.
Bruce Rubin
Computer Scientist
AFRL/RIEBA
525 Brooks Road
Rome, NY 13441-4505
DSN: 587-4506
Tel: (315) 330-4506
Cel: (315) 335-1323
"IF YOU FAIL TO PLAN, YOU PLAN TO FAIL."
Hi Gang,
I should be careful on this notion, but one of the aspects barely covered in the report are the “mashups”. These are mobile applications that run in the web browser. Even a single source web site technically has a second source in terms of the browser, itself
(thus the mashup term is valid).
Safari is sand-boxed on iOS, thus the system itself is more or less safe. However, the Androids are producing quite a bit of trouble that could spill over to other device’s web browsers. Ouch, droid does.
V/R,
Daniel Beatty, Ph.D.
Computer Scientist, Detonation Sciences Branch
Code 474300D
1 Administration Circle M/S 1109
China Lake, CA 93555
email@hidden
(LandLine) (760)939-7097
(iPhone) (806)438-6620
On 5/15/13 12:14 PM, "William Cerniuk" <email@hidden> wrote:
Looking over the Q1 2013 F-Secure Mobile Threat Report. Things look great for iPhone, BlackBerry but not so good for Android.
-
149 Threats in the wild
-
139 Android - 91.3%
-
13 Symbian - 8.7%
-
0 iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod) - 0%
-
0 BlackBerry - 0%
-
0 Windows Mobile - 0%
From the report:
“The Android malware ecosystem is beginning to resemble that which surrounds Windows...”
What is really concerning is that the threats for mobile are not the typical hack the system threats, but according to F-Secure the majority are profit motivated (76.5%). Many of these malware packages coax the user to install a piece of software that contains
a trojan. Given that you can download from anywhere on Android, it makes sense that this impacts Android vs iOS which requires all software to be vetted by Apple and come through the safety of the iTunes App store. The openness of Android is unfortunately
a double edged sword.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/android-threats-growing-in-number-and-complexity-report-says-218523
Sophos apparently threw in the towel and just reported on the malware state of affairs for Android:
http://www.sophos.com/en-us/medialibrary/PDFs/other/sophossecuritythreatreport2013.pdf
But isn't it just the argument that Android is attacked more because there are more Android? Maybe not… and no matter what, the ratio does not hold true even if that old tired argument about popularity breeds malware were true.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/mobile-market-share?qprid=8&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpcustomd=1&qptimeframe=M
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list ( email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
Peter Link
Cyber Security Analyst
Cyber Security Program
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PO Box 808, L-315
Livermore, CA 94551-0808
email@hidden
|