Army Buys Macs to Beef Up Security

agent_blue writes "The Army is integrating Macs into their IT network to thwart hack attempts. The Mac platform, they argue, is more secure because there are fewer attacks against OS X than Windows-based systems. 'Military procurement has long been driven by cost and availability of additional software--two measures where Macintosh computers have typically come up short against Windows-based PCs. Then there have been subtle but important barriers: For instance, Macintosh computers have long been incompatible with a security keycard-reading system known as Common Access Cards system, or CAC, which is heavily used by the military. The Army's Apple program, created [in 2005], is working to change that.'"

Comments

How many times?

[morgan_greywolf]

How many times do I have to keep telling people that security is more about the skill of the IT staff than it is about the operating system it runs on?

Yes, Windows has vulnerabilities. Windows sucks as far as security goes. That goes for Vista, too. But waving around an OS like it was some magic bullet that's going to somehow fix your security problems is, well, insanity.

Re:How many times?

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Psh, yeah. That 8% of Macs -- only a few tens of millions? All with no anti-virus software whatsoever? And the fame/infamy of being the first to write a self-replicating virus for Macs?

Yeah. Totally not worth it.

Stop perpetuating simple-minded myths.

Re:How many times?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

How many times do I have to keep telling people that security is more about the skill of the IT staff than it is about the operating system it runs on?

"More about" is not the same as "entirely about." Sure, a good IT staff with a bad system will be more secure than a bad IT staff with a good system. But a good IT staff with a good system will be more secure than either. And Unix-based systems, including OS X, are demonstrably better in terms of security than Windows-based systems are.

Do you think the Army should go back to using bolt-action rifles? It's true that a good marksman with an M1903 is more useful on the battlefield than a bad marksman with an M16, but ...

It's about avoiding a computing monoculture

[QuietLagoon]

But waving around an OS like it was some magic bullet that's going to somehow fix your security problems is, well, insanity.

If you read the article instead of the headline, you'll see that the Army is making the attack target more diversified, so that a single attack will not bring down all computers. What's wrong with that tactic?

Re:It's about avoiding a computing monoculture

[WinterSolstice]

As a long time opponent of homogeneous computing/infrastructure I think this is a great move. Any security conscious shop makes certain to balance the management benefits along with the heterogeneous benefits.

Sure, it's cute and cheap to run everything on any one platform, but like they always say "spread out or one grenade will get you all".

Magic Bullets Kill... sometimes not who you think

[theshowmecanuck]

... The Mac platform, they argue, is more secure because there are fewer attacks against OSX than Windows-based systems. ...

Not any more.

If the army is using it for that reason then you know the Chinese, Russians, and any other tech savvy nation will now point their hackers at Macs.

one point of failure

[Foofoobar]

so whats wrong with supporting more than one OS? Would you prefer one point of failure? A good sys admin can support multiple platforms. The only people I ever hear complain about this are Windows people who can't support anything else. Linux admins can ALWAYS support Windows and Mac platforms so why is it so hard for the vast majority of Windows admins to support the other platforms? Hmmm...? Do you just prefer having a single point of failure?

Re:OpenBSD???

[peragrin]

Actually on a properly designed system not even the Administrator's should be able to install applications alone. And no one should be able to open every file.

Files should be locked, So while the Admin's can see them, move/copy them, they can't actually open the file itself. security should extend to more than just the file system, but to the files themselves. Of course being open to all should also be a manual changed possibility.

I wonder how long it will take for someone who makes more money than I will ever see to figure that out.

Re:OpenBSD???

[UnknowingFool]

While openBSD may be more secure, remember the Army is about procedures. Leopard has been certified as Unix like AIX and Solaris. Leopard has gone through the time and expense to be certified, and it has a better UI whereas openBSD has not.