Slashdot Mirror
Ten Dangerous Beliefs About Smart Phones
jcatcw writes "According to Computerworld, lots of assumptions about the security of smart phones are wrong, and any high-value targets, such as political candidates or organizations with valuable data, should treat them carefully. They are not, contrary to common beliefs: just phones with cool features: 'A phone call over a landline used to be an acceptable method for communicating out-of-band administrative information. For example, a system administrator might call you back at your desk to verbally give you a new password (which you then changed, right?), This worked because the desk phone was isolated from the network and system resources to which you were being given access. Not so anymore. If you lose your smart phone and IT calls you back on that mobile number to confirm the trouble ticket, is it a meaningful method of verifying the identity or location of the person who answers?'"
I found that the majority of those things are generally not believed, but assumed... and even the word 'assume' doesn't necessarily describe what is happening. I think most people just don't think about it. For the most part, they just don't consider the fact that they are broadcasting a signal strong enough to reach that tower a few miles away.
That being said, I'm sure that there are a lot of people who also assume some of those things.
In your experience, which of the 10 dangerous "claims" is the most common?
It's just a phone with cool features, right?
It's stable, just like any other purpose-built appliance.
Communications are encrypted from end to end.
The connection's secure unless I use Wi-Fi in a cafe.
E-mails and messages are secure from prying eyes.
Using a mobile phone constitutes out-of-band communication.
I trust the integrity of data and applications on a smart phone
Information deleted from a smart phone is gone, right?
Spying on my smart phone is hard.
Abuse is minimal because the network and phones are constrained.
They share the same curse as the "Smart Bomb." Given that thing's track record, this was obviously a poorly-chosen adjective.
Is this true?
It's always nice when someone calls and it starts to vibrate.