Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
i thought they don't allow gays in the military?!?
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.
My blog
One small step for Mac one giant leap for Mac kind.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cac+on+mac&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Support is built into Safari, and it is possible to set it up to log into a Windows domain, I believe.
_sig_ is away
How will they know if the user prefers a Mac or PC with their "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Trolling is a art,
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?
The clear majority of the really high end computer security people I know are driving Macs. On the military side Army and Marines seem to be tinkering more with Linux. The Marines less so because of NMCI, but there was a demo of battlefield information system that was Linux based. Navy and Marines have pretty much locked themselves into Windows desktops managed by EDS on the administrative side. A move I believe will go down as one of the great defeats in Naval history, with casualties of 250 million American taxpayers.
Don't know about the Air Force but the few AF people I've met at conferences seemed pretty on the ball and struck me as Linux curious if not outright supporters.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Mac: Hi I'm a Mac
PC: and I'm a PC
Military Intelligence: And I'm no longer an oxymoron
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Brings a whole new meaning to BootCamp, doesn't it?
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?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
1) Out of the box, you don't have services running you can exploit.
2) On install, OS X makes you chose a username so you have to log in to use the system.
3) OS X by default is suspicious of all content coming in from the web.
OS X already starts out with a high level of security, and doesn't do anything that would lead a user to weaken that without need (say opening a port for printer sharing).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.