Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Army Acquires More Macs To Enhance Cybersecurity
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reputation
As a long time Mac user (Jan 1984, 128k), I believe Apple has a good reputation for security. This is the type of positive press that shows how important it is to preserve that reputation.
Apple needs to do everything possible to plug security holes in a timely fashion because once lost a good reputation is hard to regain.
As a long time Mac user (Jan 1984, 128k), I believe Apple has a good reputation for security. This is the type of positive press that shows how important it is to preserve that reputation.
Apple needs to do everything possible to plug security holes in a timely fashion because once lost a good reputation is hard to regain.
Along this line,
At the company I work for, we prohibited new development of Internet facing applications that will run on Windows machines. All forward facing windows system will be aged and then decommissioned.
Now that was not easy or popular. The military maybe heading down the same road.
At the company I work for, we prohibited new development of Internet facing applications that will run on Windows machines. All forward facing windows system will be aged and then decommissioned.
Now that was not easy or popular. The military maybe heading down the same road.
Replacing Unix systems is far more than just a simple software change. Simply put, OS X Server is not an enterprise computing platform. Apple's enterprise support is also apparently quite lacking - they simply aren't setup to provide enterprise class computing, although the recent XServes would make decent clusters.
I use a Mac on the client side, but I personally would never use one as a server the way things stand now.
The question for me is whether this move will mean that Apple will start catching the eye of more hackers. One of the things that has kept the Mac platform free of viruses and trojans is that the platform has been largely considered insignificant and a waste of time to develop them for it. If the government starts using lots of Macs (not to mention more popular items like the iPhone and the increased sales of Macs in general in recent years, especially laptops), there will be incentive for hackers to start attacking Macs and I'm afraid we'll find out the Mac isn't so secure as people want to believe it is, but rather was never really tested/exploited by the hackers that be, so-to-speak. Sure it's Unix, but Unix in general isn't targeted by the masses either. Maybe it will be good for the long term security of both MacOS and Unix systems in general if some security flaws are exposed so they can be fixed. I mean imagine if Windows weren't attacked like it is. It'd still have thousands and thousands of security flaws that are NOT there today and could be that much more easily hacked by cyber-terrorists or the like.
Things like the power grid need to be protected like nothing else. Imagine the power going out for months (a scenario mentioned in recent months if generators were overloaded via computer hacking) . It'd be chaos. I'd prefer such systems be off the Net PERIOD. It's too risky. Yet we're seeing more and more systems worldwide all linking up to the Internet for productivity or remote access reasons. It's a global catastrophe waiting to happen, IMO, Mac, Unix or PC alike. Those systems should be on private extra-networks, not the Internet, IMO. Anything connected to the Internet has an inherent risk that can't be fully eliminated no matter how good the security of a particular OS or software. Anyone ever see WarGames? It's not so far-fetched (minus the self-aware computer aspect) and that was presupposed using ancient modems, not high-speed networks. I can't recall how many times they've talked about x military computer previously thought impervious to attack being hacked by someone in years past (usually relatively harmless "see if I can do it" type things), but when things like Blue-ray and iPhone are hacked in a few weeks or months despite the best efforts to keep them secure, well.... the writing is on the wall, I'm afraid. NO computer or network is truly secure. If the government believes simply adding Macs will completely change that, I'm afraid they're mistaken. I agree that advertising the move is not very smart either and certainly not "quiet".
Things like the power grid need to be protected like nothing else. Imagine the power going out for months (a scenario mentioned in recent months if generators were overloaded via computer hacking) . It'd be chaos. I'd prefer such systems be off the Net PERIOD. It's too risky. Yet we're seeing more and more systems worldwide all linking up to the Internet for productivity or remote access reasons. It's a global catastrophe waiting to happen, IMO, Mac, Unix or PC alike. Those systems should be on private extra-networks, not the Internet, IMO. Anything connected to the Internet has an inherent risk that can't be fully eliminated no matter how good the security of a particular OS or software. Anyone ever see WarGames? It's not so far-fetched (minus the self-aware computer aspect) and that was presupposed using ancient modems, not high-speed networks. I can't recall how many times they've talked about x military computer previously thought impervious to attack being hacked by someone in years past (usually relatively harmless "see if I can do it" type things), but when things like Blue-ray and iPhone are hacked in a few weeks or months despite the best efforts to keep them secure, well.... the writing is on the wall, I'm afraid. NO computer or network is truly secure. If the government believes simply adding Macs will completely change that, I'm afraid they're mistaken. I agree that advertising the move is not very smart either and certainly not "quiet".
The problem is not with the security of OS X, but the functionality of OS X Server. OS X Server is a joke of an enterprise computing server OS, sorry to say.
Apple's lacking presence in the enterprise has very little to do with the security of OS X, but in OS X Server and Apple themselves.
Apple has positioned OS X Server as an easy-to-use "just-add-water" type server solution for small business providing the familiar Apple bubble. Once you need to leave the Apple bubble, all of the advantages of using OS X are lost, and it becomes increasingly difficult.
Again, Apple's focus is not in Enterprise computing.
Apple has positioned OS X Server as an easy-to-use "just-add-water" type server solution for small business providing the familiar Apple bubble. Once you need to leave the Apple bubble, all of the advantages of using OS X are lost, and it becomes increasingly difficult.
Again, Apple's focus is not in Enterprise computing.
That's not true at all. Unix and Linux has been running on servers forever, it is very much a target. Where it isn't a target is in building botnets, but that doesn't mean that Unix is not a target.
I don't have a copy of OS Server to test so I will go along.
However when it comes to security a lot of times it is an issue of how the system is configured that makes a big difference. The most perfect system can be easily made vulnerable after some clueless person makes changes to the system settings.
Better hardening of the OS (OS X, Solaris, Linux, Windows (all flavors)) by a professional, makes a lot of difference.
There are a lot of Xnix programs and facilities that should be removed and or disabled to raise the security of the systems. People think of hackers as outsiders and lacking of internal information. In reality the most successful and damaging hacks are performed by insiders. But a lot of corporations still only worry about the outsider and not the insider. Systems need to be harden against both.
And often times these computers become this way because they become difficult to manage, just like OS X Server would be if put in that situation and made to handle enterprise computing tasks.
Hoplites weren't professional soldiers. Good move on the US Army's part, makes sense to diversify your risk.
Boy are they going to feel silly when massive updates come at MWSF
When it comes to the U.S Army they are not consumers like the rest of us. They wouldn't care if they got models 2 years old as long as the Mac they are using is doing the job.
Yes but in different patterns and colors depending on the Theater of Operation.
*sighs* Why do the headlines always get mangled around with? Macs are being purchased to diversify the security in the Army. In an IT environment, appropriately configured, I will say this with 100% certainty, Windows XP is as secure as OS X...period. End of story. The problem is most people who do IT now a days are idiots who got their MCSE through a boot camp and don't have a freaking idea of HOW Windows works in the background and as such they are poorly configured. I have to imagine the Army is a different matter. No its about diversity. Having the same computer OS everywhere is just a bad idea in general. Diversity breeds security. What you think all humans are the same? Why do you think some people react differently to the flu then others? But it breeds security from the standpoint that a virus from Windows can't infect a *nix system nor are the attack vectors the same on a *nix system. Personally I wouldn't use OS X on a Mac. I would probably go with a stripped down version of BSD....yah I know OS X is based on BSD but OS X's, especially Leopard's, security is interesting. Especially its built in firewall. Its just a theory but a lot of OS X's API and front end makes me wonder how much of that is open to the possibility of hacking the OS. No the Army should grab BSD and build their own UI for it. OS X is a fine OS...for consumers. In a mission, and security critical roll I simply don't trust it...It really hasn't had a trial by fire yet in a larger scale corp environment. When half the corp world is going OS X, then lets talk.
Windows XP is *not* as secure as OS X, unless you don't run as an administrator and don't mind the fact that there are some things you can't do without being an admin.
If you are running as an XP admin, compared to running as an OS X or Linux admin the security model is really lacking in sanity. I would love to hear the rationale behind your argument.
I'm in the Air Force and I can tell you...if they decided to swap over to Macs for "normal office work"....the Department of Defense would shut down. We are VERY windows based....Win XP...Office....blackberry...ect. We rely heavily on internet based products (intranets, ect). Firefox is not generally approved...and I don't know what kind of security Safari brings to the table.
Outlook is a another example...not just for email but for the PIM stuff it provides. I know there are similar mac products.....but I think Outlook does it better.
And...IMHO...I don't see the cost benefits. The DoD buys computers on a group buy system. Every three years or so...when it is "life cycle replacement" time....pallets and pallets of computers hit the comm. squadron for distro. Sometimes it is Dell....sometimes HP....whoever is the "low bidder." Your thoughts of those companies aside....a Dell and some Norton anti-virus software (which the DoD has a blanked licence for) must be tons cheaper than buying truckloads of Macs.
Besides that...I can't tell you how many folks are technopheasants when it comes to working windows aps. At least most folks have a general understanding of these products where as most folks have never even touched a mac in their life.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing the overall value of Mac vs. PC....I'm just saying that there will be a immeasurable growing pains invovled....and productivity will sink for a while. The learning curve will be insane! Forget about it if they don't make the switch for 100% of the force. Folks move around a lot. What a PITA if one office was PC based...then their next office was Mac based....sheesh!
With that....I work with military graphics folks and photographers. They'd all rather have a Mac to work projects....but for day to day stuff....I think they are happy w/ their PCs.
Just my perspective.
Thats odd. You would think they would not want people using the security hole known as IE. I work for a chip manufacturer and we are not allowed to use IE. It's the Firefox way (or with mine being the only Mac, the safari way) or the highway.
I was at Costco today and saw that M$ now has it's own anti-virus suite they sell at Costco for $39.99. Now that takes balls.
I think the Windows trained IT professionals fear Mac OS X not for the security of the operating system, but the security of their employment.
If users are connecting to the internet, this is where Mac OS X is clearly more secure.
We must give due credit for the users here in these forums who have outlined
the correct ways to use Mac OS X in a secure network environment.
Finally, keep in mind that some very influential people have kids using Mac OS X in school. They see how their kids are no longer plagued with Windows
Viruses and malware and that they rarely need IT help.
The real weakness in computer security is directly related to the lack
of Mulit-Platform training offered to so called IT security professionals.
If users are connecting to the internet, this is where Mac OS X is clearly more secure.
We must give due credit for the users here in these forums who have outlined
the correct ways to use Mac OS X in a secure network environment.
Finally, keep in mind that some very influential people have kids using Mac OS X in school. They see how their kids are no longer plagued with Windows
Viruses and malware and that they rarely need IT help.
The real weakness in computer security is directly related to the lack
of Mulit-Platform training offered to so called IT security professionals.
Actually, if there is an increase in Macs and decrease in Windows PCs as stated, the two series will converge in 30.9 years, not 170, and it will be at 81,818 computers each.
I'd have to go with the red tiger camouflage or possibly the digital errr gray camo? I guess it's considered urban camo?
Regardless, it would be bad ass.