BlackBerry PlayBook First Tablet To Gain NIST Approval

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BlackBerry PlayBook First Tablet To Gain NIST Approval

Posted by timothy on Friday July 22, 2011 @02:05PM from the perfect-for-bureaucrats dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Despite its current struggles to win over consumers, RIM has always been strong in the enterprise. The company remained steadfast in its support for corporate environments with the launch of the PlayBook, calling it the only business-grade tablet. The NIST is now ready to back that claim, giving the BlackBerry PlayBook its stamp of approval — meaning it's now the lone tablet that is certified for use in U.S. government agencies."

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Gov't approval by alphatel · 2011-07-22 14:07 · Score: 1

Is that the sound of a $1,000 toaster?

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
1. Re:Gov't approval by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Is that the sound of a $1,000 toaster?
  If you're making it for the Space Program, then yeah probably.
2. Re:Gov't approval by thedarkchaos · 2011-07-22 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  It blends in nicely with the $7,600 coffee maker.
DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Frosty+Piss · 2011-07-22 14:11 · Score: 4, Informative

We in the Air Mobility Command â" think cargo jets â" have been looking at tablets for flight pubs and Jeppesen products. The iPad is without question out for various reasons. The two we have been looking at are the HP TouchPad, and the RIM product. The HP product has received better feedback, but because the RIM product already has the NIST approval (and the fact that the government is already in love with RIM), it is probably the direction we will go. Keep in mind that, of course, the air crew will still have to haul around the paper products, they just will not use them. Also, most of our guys already pack personal iPads, but they cannot be officially used for anything involving the actual operation of the aircraft.
I'm sure the DoD will buy them buy the many 1000's.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Known+Nutter · 2011-07-22 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  The iPad is without question out for various reasons.
  Could you (or someone) point out some of these reasons? Not trolling here, just not familiar with this subject and would like a little insight.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
2. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by alen · 2011-07-22 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  need itunes to load media on it
  no way to mass purchase licenses of software
  apple probably doesn't want anything to do with the GSA or any government business
3. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Frosty+Piss · 2011-07-22 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  For us it has a lot to do with custom applications and the available development languages. The iPad is a very nice product, but as a platform is tightly controlled by Apple (as is their right, it's their product).
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
4. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Moridineas · 2011-07-22 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not arguing that iPad doesn't have problems in large corporate/institutional environments, but of the two reasons you list, one is clearly invalid:
  https://volume.itunes.apple.com/
5. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Frosty+Piss · 2011-07-22 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  apple probably doesn't want anything to do with the GSA or any government business
  Why? What would it be about selling several dozen 1000 of these things and the support contract that would go with them to the DoD that Apple wouldn't like?
  But, the iPad is a consumer product that answers consumer needs, not general computing needs. The DoD (and I suspect most "enterprise") will not be using their tablets primarily for social interaction and watching multimedia, viewing photo albums, playing games and such - consumer wants and needs, not "enterprise" wants and needs.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
6. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  I've got a friend whose business is stuffing the iPad full of flight documentation and manuals and it's for defence. Sorry, don't make stuff up.
7. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by symbolset · 2011-07-22 15:13 · Score: 2
  
  The government is hard to understand. All this proves is that RIM is good at passing these gates. Dell is good at this too, and a US company, and has Android tablets. RIM Won't be alone on this field long enough to matter.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
8. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  >
  apple probably doesn't want anything to do with the GSA or any government business
  except the Australian Government: DSD tests Apple iOS for national security http://www.zdnet.com.au/dsd-tests-apple-ios-for-national-security-339310133.htm
9. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:20 · Score: -1
  
  You know this shit has just been released, it's not like he's reasons are "cleary invalid". He's just misinformed. You fucking arrogant and dishonest faggot.
10. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by robmv · 2011-07-22 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Buy in volume and distribute, that looks like applications still will be tied to an user, companies want applications tied to them and be able to move licences between users. " you will receive redemption codes for each app. You can control who gets the apps by providing these codes to users via email or an internal website" looks like apps are distributed but could the company later assign that app to another user? If not its an awful program from the business company point of view, for Apple and the developer is a dream multiple sales
11. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by rtb61 · 2011-07-22 15:31 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Easy to sum up 'government grade' how boring, iPad like all the other iStuff is all about marketing and the perception of being 'special' for owning iJunk, of having better fashion taste and sense, of being able to afford it. In other words when it comes to actual function over form it tends to fail against the competition. So fine plenty of money in the iGullible market, it's just once you loose that fake 'cool; the market can collapse pretty fast.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
12. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-22 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a friend whose business is stuffing the iPad full of flight documentation and manuals and it's for defence. Sorry, don't make stuff up.
  Sounds like nice work if you can get it. Outside apple land he would be replaced with a few short scripts.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
13. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by stephanruby · 2011-07-22 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  1. The iPad is made in China (the paranoids could say there could be a backdoor in there, just like we've made backdoors within Intel products and Xerox Machines in the past, we're fearful that a large enough foreign power would try doing the same back to us at some point. It wouldn't have to be an obvious backdoor. Introducing a vulnerability or two into iPhones/iPads at a low enough level could still allow China access to our devices and yet still provide some plausibility of denial that this was just a vulnerability, not a purposeful backdoor).
  2. The iPad needs iTunes connectivity. The iPad/iPhone is a consumer device first and foremost.
  3. Android can be encrypted all the way down to the hardware level, there are custom ROMs and chips made by researchers and defense contractors for that purpose. I also believe RIM, Nokia, and Windows Phone 6.5 had that too. The iPhone received some kind of encryption capability only recently, and then, I'm not even sure if it goes all the way down to the hardware (and even if it did, then the paranoids would complain that we shouldn't trust hardware-level encryption that's manufactured in China).
  4. The iPhone/iPad often needs custom proprietary parts. With Android, MS/Nokia, RIM/BlackBerry, they allow you to use something as trivial as OEM batteries, or OEM extended batteries. The military has a long history of requiring a second source for all the hardware it commissions, hence the only way that Intel could get government contracts was to teach its arch nemesis AMD how to manufacture some of the same exact parts the military commissioned. And right now, Apple just doesn't seem interested in sharing its technology or licensing its technology to a competitor just so it could win big government contracts (the company is making plenty of money as it is, it certainly doesn't need to blow its IP in order to pander to the needs of the military).
  5. The learning curve for doing iPad/iPhone development is still much higher than doing stuff on Android (although with better HTML5 mobile support, that may change soon enough I suppose).
  6. Steve Jobs is a damn controlling hippy. There I said it. See my snippet of the quote from the iPhone/iPad/iTunes Terms of Services below. This is not to say that the military is interested in making weapons with iPads, I seriously doubt anyone wants to do that, but this clause just seems to be completely unnecessary in my opinion and would cause enough of a pause from military procurement to consider that Apple products really haven't been designed with the military in mind in the first place and that it may be hard to extract extra concessions from Apple in case the military needs anything else from Apple.
  
  "Licensee also agrees that Licensee will not use the Apple Software for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
14. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by methano · 2011-07-22 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're trying to be funny but it's not polite to make fun of people whose first language isn't English.
15. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Mr.+Freeman · 2011-07-22 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, US law doesn't prohibit the military from producing weapons, so there's really no conflict in the license terms. I've seen that line in a lot of licenses for a lot of products that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to weapons or manufacturing of the same. I think it's just something that a lot of product manufacturers throw in there to cover their ass in case some terrorist gets caught with an iphone/ipad/whatever in their car.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
16. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Moridineas · 2011-07-22 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Is that true? I have very limited experience with rollouts of software in large environments (as I currently work at a small company) but our volume licensing setup for Adobe protects is tied to the machine, not the user. I thought that was fairly common?
17. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by dragonturtle69 · 2011-07-22 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  In my limited, thankfully, experience dealing with licensing, the license following the user or device depends upon the software being licensed. The OS belongs to the machine, or in a large organization, the organization. Third party applications follow the user, within the organization. But, the licenses tied to a user can be moved within the organization.
  
  --
  "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
18. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by dragonturtle69 · 2011-07-22 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  So, are you saying that "iStuff" is the 2000's Jordache/Izod? ;)
  
  --
  "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
19. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by mysidia · 2011-07-22 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  And they also have integration through MDM:
  Businesses have a variety of options for deploying iPad across their enterprises. End-users can quickly install configuration profiles to get corporate services up and running. For large scale deployments IT can query and manage devices with Mobile Device Management. iTunes can be customized to fit the needs of both IT and end-users. And, enterprises can also distribute custom iPad apps over-the-air for their users to install.
20. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by mysidia · 2011-07-22 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  that looks like applications still will be tied to an user, companies want applications tied to them and be able to move licences between users.
  Citrix and Microsoft have similar licensing models.
  With citrix/microsoft per-user licensing you assign a license to a user. It is possible to re-assign a license from one user to another, but once you do so, there is a significant waiting period before you are allowed to re-assign the license again.
  The only option besides per-user licensing is per-device licensing. But per-user is the prevalent licensing option. So i'm not seeing Apple's per-user method as a major drawback; the corporation still owns that software in any case.
21. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Frosty+Piss · 2011-07-22 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a friend whose business is stuffing the iPad full of flight documentation and manuals and it's for defence. Sorry, don't make stuff up.
  You, sir, may have a "friend", but he is *not* stuffing iPads with whatever for Air Force flight crews, at least not for official use. For the USAF, it is *not* an approved device. In fact, there are *no* Apple devices that are approved to be connected to to our network (at least NIPR or SIPRNET), so it would not be possible to update the device - flight pubs, nav databases, and Jeppesen products are updated quite often, almost monthly. Not to mention the aircraft TOs and FCIFs. Currently, the only portable computers we use for pubs are Panasonic ToughBooks.
  You "friend" may have a job stuffing something, but it's *not* iPads for the Air Force.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
22. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by kybred · 2011-07-22 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  This is from a BlackBerry Software license agreement:
  
  (2) You will not use the RIM Products and Software in the development, production, handling, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or their missile delivery systems, or of materials or equipment that could be used in such weapons or their missile delivery systems, or resell or export to anyone or any entity involved in such activity;.
  That's pretty standard legalese found in most SLAs. So is RIM a controlling hippie, also?
23. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by milkmage · 2011-07-22 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  that's for apps from 3rd parties. say you want everyone on your team to use Angry Birds.. you buy bunch of licenses and distribite to your team. it's not terribly different than buying bulk licenses for something like Photoshop. IT buys the licenses then decides who gets one.
  but
  there's also a way to deploy apps made by you (or for you) internally. you don't see the SalesForce apps in the app store. You can also distribute apps via email (in your company) if each device is provisioned. once it is, you can get the ipa file via any means, and install with itunes. this is how my company distributed our app for pilot testing (in production) before it was submitted to the store for public consumption.
24. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by tlhIngan · 2011-07-22 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  The iPad is made in China (the paranoids could say there could be a backdoor in there, just like we've made backdoors within Intel products and Xerox Machines in the past, we're fearful that a large enough foreign power would try doing the same back to us at some point. It wouldn't have to be an obvious backdoor. Introducing a vulnerability or two into iPhones/iPads at a low enough level could still allow China access to our devices and yet still provide some plausibility of denial that this was just a vulnerability, not a purposeful backdoor).
  If that was the big problem, then NIST will not certify anything. Practically all consumer Android devices, iOS devices, the PlayBook, and other tablets are made in China. In fact, it's likely that with this announcement, China may decide to figure out a way to backdoor the PlayBook knowing the government has approved it.
  Blackberries aren't made in North America, they're made in China at the same factories churning out iPhones, Droids, and everything else. They're vulnerable to the exact same hacks that'll break through an iPhone and an iPod.
  In fact, the sheer volume of iPhones and iPods sold could very well mean the chance that any particular device will have access to sensitive data is very low - if they're churning 5+ million devices a month, it's pretty hard to ensure that one will make it to its intended destination, short of sabotaging the entire run which is extremely difficult (how do you hide the fact that someone just purchased millions of parts?, and if the sabotage has any side effect, you can bet someone will blog about some oddity they're seeing, and being Apple, it'll land on the front page of /.
25. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by tlhIngan · 2011-07-22 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  apple probably doesn't want anything to do with the GSA or any government business
  Funny they this page linked off their store (www.apple.com, click on "Store", then "Government Store"). GSA schedule and all.
  Of course, you can also use your government status to buy slightly-discounted stuff for yourself, too.
  (No, I didn't know it existed until someone asked me to look it up a few days ago...)
26. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Barsteward · 2011-07-22 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  "enterprises can also distribute custom iPad apps over-the-air for their users to install."
  
  i'm sure an enterprise will love that lack of control - technically illiterate users installing apps.
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
27. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  FYI Blackberry phones are made in canada, mexico, or hungary. Although the individual parts they buy in mass and probably come from china/taiwan/india
  Not sure where the playbook is made
28. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by gilesjuk · 2011-07-22 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds about right for government applications. Pick the device that has the poorest usability.
29. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  Again with the "it's all marketing" argument, as if NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would choose an Apple device. Maybe they're not for you, but that's no call to insult the intelligence of people who do like and purchase those devices.
  To put it more simply: grow up.
30. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, I do AdHoc releases on my local network as it makes it very easy to update the collection of devices I have in the house.
  Just tap a bookmark on the homescreen and then the application that has been updated. The user gets a message to approve or cancel the install, and then it transfers. Done.
  Enterprise applications (signed with an enterprise key) work the same way, the device just needs the enterprise certificate installed first.
31. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-23 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  "enterprises can also distribute custom iPad apps over-the-air for their users to install." i'm sure an enterprise will love that lack of control - technically illiterate users installing apps.
  If your user can't install an iPad app, then you should probably not let them near anything more complex than a toaster.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
32. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by robmv · 2011-07-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You say MS and Citrix but I have not read confirmation about Apple allowing reassignation to other user, do Apple allow it too?
33. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by narcc · 2011-07-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  The iPad is a very nice product, but as a platform is tightly controlled by Apple (as is their right, it's their product).
  Their right? Sorry, I didn't realize that $499 was the rental price.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
34. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by mr100percent · 2011-07-23 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  When iOS 5 comes out in the fall, it will not need iTunes any longer.
35. Re:DoD is Ga Ga For RIM... by tlhIngan · 2011-07-25 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  You, sir, may have a "friend", but he is *not* stuffing iPads with whatever for Air Force flight crews, at least not for official use. For the USAF, it is *not* an approved device. In fact, there are *no* Apple devices that are approved to be connected to to our network (at least NIPR or SIPRNET), so it would not be possible to update the device - flight pubs, nav databases, and Jeppesen products are updated quite often, almost monthly. Not to mention the aircraft TOs and FCIFs. Currently, the only portable computers we use for pubs are Panasonic ToughBooks.
  Have you considered that the iPads may be running regular consumer level apps? The number of pilot assistance apps is huge on iOS. Jeppesen's got a few iPad apps - Jeppsen Mobile FD and Jeppesen Mobile TC. Plus a half dozen other companies are making EFB-style apps.
  Electronic charts, airport diagrams, etc. The apps already are there on iPad for consumer use.
  Flight manuals and docs? PDFs and a suitable reader. Even iBooks would work.
Doesn't Matter by desertfool · 2011-07-22 14:12 · Score: 1

In the corporate world it is all about looking cool in the airport. Which means we have to support iPads.

--
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
1. Re:Doesn't Matter by CharmElCheikh · 2011-07-22 14:20 · Score: 2
  
  Is my business the only one ever to realise that blackberry stores your emails on their servers, and that the patriot act gives US government the right to read it? I don't understand why so many businesses overlook that.
  
  --
  My /. user ID is probably higher than yours
2. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  You also support iPads because the corporate world sends and receives emails and runs applications.
3. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  "In the corporate world it is all about looking cool in the airport. Which means we have to support iPads"
  Which, strangely sounds more enterprise than...PlayBook? Really? Not - oh I don't know...WorkBook? EfficiencyBook? I know - EnterpriseBook!
4. Re:Doesn't Matter by jjetson · 2011-07-22 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  What does it matter if RIM is holding Encrypted emails that they don't have the key to decrypt? They don't overlook it, because there's nothing to overlook. The government doesn't have the keys to decrypt those messages either. Hence RIMs problems in middle east countries.
5. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  Most businesses view it as a convenient form of backup, or don't particularly believe that there is a reason they should worry about the government having access to their e-mails, or know that they could be subpoenaed directly from the company mail servers under the Patriot Act anyway
6. Re:Doesn't Matter by causality · 2011-07-22 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is my business the only one ever to realise that blackberry stores your emails on their servers, and that the patriot act gives US government the right to read it? I don't understand why so many businesses overlook that.
  I wish the problem were simple ignorance as you describe. That may be going on as well, of course, but the real problem is much worse than the kind of ignorance that could be remedied with a couple minutes' explanation. The problem is denial.
  
  The problem is that the average person doesn't recognize the danger that represents. They think, "well *I* have nothing to hide" and "well, *I* haven't done anything illegal". Of course, both of those assume that government thugs would only ever go after real criminals after finding real evidence that crimes have been committed and would always respect the privacy of everyone else. Both of those assume that government agents never, ever, never, ever, ever, not once, ever, abuse their authority.
  
  Any thinking person who even slightly paid attention to history can see the problem with that. The probem is, they're outnumbered thousands-to-one by everyone else. Time and time again it has been shown that extraordinary surveillance powers will be extraordinarily abused, but to appreciate that, you must first admit that we're not the very first exception. The attitude that police states only occur in those foreign countries, that "it can't happen here" so we can all go back to sleep, well that's the one thing most certain to guarantee that it does.
  
  The other thing that history has repeatedly shown is that runaway government which never stops expanding is a far greater threat than any foreign enemy has ever been. It happens this way every single time it's tried. I suppose those who are really in denial would find fault with me for seeing that two and two added together equals four, every time you try it, and concluding that it will equal four the next time you try it, too.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
7. Re:Doesn't Matter by Sinthet · 2011-07-22 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, I noticed this as well. Kinda poor choice of words when you're trying to sell primarily to business.
8. Re:Doesn't Matter by causality · 2011-07-22 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What does it matter if RIM is holding Encrypted emails that they don't have the key to decrypt? They don't overlook it, because there's nothing to overlook. The government doesn't have the keys to decrypt those messages either. Hence RIMs problems in middle east countries.
  That whole affair with service in India proved that if they really want to, they can indeed decrypt the e-mails.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:Doesn't Matter by erroneus · 2011-07-22 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Problems RIM has capitulated on... problems they didn't seem to have with the US government which, if you think about it, can only mean that it was given to them quietly and without a fuss. RIM controls not just what passes through their servers (which is everything) but also controls the servers which integrate with the unencrypted servers on the government/business end. Given how easily most telecoms rolled over and allowed the NSA to set up their listening rooms, I have little doubt that RIM was complicit in a similar way.
10. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  Is my business the only one ever to realise that blackberry stores your emails on their servers, and that the patriot act gives US government the right to read it? I don't understand why so many businesses overlook that.
  I hope you aren't the one giving that advice to your business.
  You are thinking of the way they handle PIN messages or BBM instant messages *or* their basic BIS service. These are like any cloud service like gmail as far as their ability to access it.
  A BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES... don't confuse with BIS) goes on your premises and transfers messages in and out of your mail server (Exchange, Domino or GroupWise.) This server connects to the RIM infrastructure, which is responsible for communicating with the carriers. They only transport the data and have no need to decrypt it (and they can't, because you set the keys.) It works both ways. When you 'send' a message on your BES-connected Blackberry, the device sends an encrypted blob back to your BES server which then acts like any other client to the mail server.
  BES doesn't hold the messages anyway (trust me, not enough disk space on them) - they remain in their original location on your own mail server.
11. Re:Doesn't Matter by datapharmer · 2011-07-22 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  So I suppose you don't use webmail google apps or any online storage? If the government wants to know what you are doing there are a lot of other ways they can find out beyond asking RIM for a copy. After all, it is *email* which is sent plain text over public networks. Remember those special rooms in the at&t facilities that were oh so controversial a while back? I'll give you a hint, they weren't being used to store old bollywood films.
  
  --
  Get a web developer
12. Re:Doesn't Matter by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-22 18:51 · Score: 2
  
  Really? I don't recall RIM capitulating on BES encryption, only BIS where they actually have access to the keys. BES is encrypted with keys not held by RIM, so how would RIM give them access? I suppose if you happen to crack the keys... but it's not like they're relying on encryption methods and key generation methods that aren't known... and there's a reason Governments force RIM to give them BIS access instead of just cracking it themselves...
  And in terms of government and business, users are pretty much connected via BES, not BIS. Heck, even home users could theoretically roll their own BES setup if they wanted to (You can get free versions of BES, though of course the software and hardware that requires isn't exactly free)
13. Re:Doesn't Matter by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-22 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. If you have a blackberry, the playbook can do email. So for organizations that are 100% blackberry, does the e-mail issue strike you as particularly relevant?
14. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  No we don't. We use iOs devices, Android, MacBooks Pro and Linux laptops (Windows has been banned as end user OS), storage is always in house, only exception is calender entries which are replicated, all work is done on our Citrix farm which is accessed thru IPsec tunnels from laptops and iPads.
  btw. it seems that DoD has learned the lesson too... the LPS distro looks more or less like our Linux clients.
  Our biggest problem are users at management level who WANT to have "their" documents on the device.
15. Re:Doesn't Matter by narcc · 2011-07-23 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  That whole affair with service in India proved that if they really want to, they can indeed decrypt the e-mails.
  Wrong again.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
16. Re:Doesn't Matter by CharmElCheikh · 2011-07-24 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I use these services for personal use indeed. There's no industrial secret (or any secret) in my personal email. But my business stores everything in house and email communication with key partners or customers is on TLS.
  
  --
  My /. user ID is probably higher than yours
Wouldn't it be cheaper by apparently · 2011-07-22 14:23 · Score: 1

to just buy the CEO a pair of clip-on sideburns?
Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:28 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Waddling: it's cute ... when ducks do it!

Killing yourself with food is really, really slow. There are faster ways that don't burden the health care system and force somebody else to pay for your gluttonous slobbery. Of course that might be exactly what you don't like about them you selfish pigs.

If making excuses for why you can't put the fucking fork down burned calories you'd all look like anorexic crackheads. Not a single one of you can say hey, my shitty decision making got me into this mess and better decision making will get me out. Spineless cowards who fail at life, all of you.

"Oh it's my big bones" Yeah sure because bone looks exactly like jiggly rolls of fat, you fatass. "McDonalds made me do it!" Really? Did they strap you to a chair and force-feed you then? Cuz it seems to me fast-food is the LAST thing a lard-ass should eat. Veggies are at least as cheap. "But you don't understand how it is." Yeah I do, that's why I eat good food and exercise so I don't end up like you. You think it's some cosmic accident I'm not a gluttonous pig? I bet you do, don't you?

Oh yeah and at grocery and department stores, quit using those electric wheeled fat-carts. For the love of god if anybody needs to do more walking, it's fatass america. Oh yeah and if you are so ginormously lard-ass fat that you take up the space of three normal people, it is you who should move out of my way. Consider it your exercise regimen to shift your enormous bulk a few feet over. Gotta start small and all of that.

When the aliens come, I hope they eat the FAT ones first. The rest of us will thank them. Both for getting rid of you and the body odor since you can't seem to properly clean yourselves and for your children who will no longer be abused by you teaching them to be little lardasses so they get predisposed to all kinds of fun diseases from a young age.

If any of that offends you, i am sure you can find a nice big bucket of comfort food to eat. Because that'll help.
1. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  Um... what?
2. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by beardz · 2011-07-22 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Cool story, bro.
3. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:59 · Score: -1
  
  Um... what?
  Ok, you know how in most countries of the world people are generally in decent (if not triathlete-style exceptional) shape and big fat disgusting lardasses are relatively rare and an unusual thing to see?
  
  That's not how it is in the USA.
  
  It's exactly the reverse. People who aren't trying to commit long, drawn-out, slow suicide with food are rare. Adults who understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the whole concept of "you cannot possibly gain weight unless you overeat, and 'overeat' means eating more calories than you burn" are hard to find in the 'States. This simple concept that a retarded dog could understand is a hard doctrine for them. They will come up with a millon excuses to avoid admitting it. Not because they have any reason to believe it isn't true, mind you, but because it would imply they should change their ways and by God they can't stand that one bit.
  
  Some of us in the 'States are pretty fucking tired of it. The only thing worse than the rampant suicidal obesity is the attitude that goes along with it. The attitude is that adult life "just happens", that nothing ever has anything to do with the decisions you make, that it's all some big cosmic lottery and you just got the lotto ticket for "lardass" and there's nothing to be done about it.
  
  Just try finding a good woman in the USA. A good woman doesn't hate herself and pollute her own body with fat and diabetes and heart disease to express her self-hatred. You really don't wanna be with a woman who hates herself. She can't love you without first loving herself. No matter how hard you try to deny that, it's true. These days, that automatically rules out something like 60-70% of the population depending on where you live.
  
  This is not sustainable. Another couple of generations and we won't have a country anymore. Maybe it's a good thing that so many Mexicans don't respect our immigration laws. Maybe what they really don't respect is that we think our prosperity gives us the right to be fat, stupid, wasteful, gluttonous lard-asses who can't even manage our own bodies, let alone our own affairs or our own government. Maybe the Mexicans deserve this country more than we do after all.
4. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by LongearedBat · 2011-07-22 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh!!! I think GP meant that Blackberry's are as useful as toasters (ie. not).
  While I'm not disagreeing with that general image of people in the US, I also know (despite not living in the US myself) that there are too many exceptions to make it overall true.
  Your post is completely off topic flamebait. Someone mod parent as such please, just to teach him to be polite.
5. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  Blackberry's what are as useful as tosaters?
6. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  From "Blackberry Playbook" to "we won't have a country anymore." LOL. Go get me a cheeseburger you drooling cunt-trickle.
7. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  It's actually the first law of Thermodynamics (second law is that entropy always increases).
8. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by LongearedBat · 2011-07-22 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live, few people use Blackberry's (iPhone and Andoid devices are far more prevalent) and the few Blackberry users I've spoken seem have been disappointed with them. So that's my interpretation of the "Gov't approval" post.
9. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by camperslo · 2011-07-22 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  One would hope that something for government agencies would avoid the usual security problems (like Flash issues), but that doesn't seem to be the case unless they're getting a special configuration.
  http://btsc.webapps.blackberry.com/btsc/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=KB27365
10. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-07-22 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  We get it, Steve, you have trouble maintaining weight since the cancer, and now this Playbook thing...
11. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-22 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live, few people use Blackberry's
  Where you live, do few people know how to use an apostrophe too?
  Hint: That is what the grandparent poster was commenting on.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
12. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Your post is completely off topic flamebait. Someone mod parent as such please, just to teach him to be polite.
  Yes that is always something you can order people to do by adjusting a tally sheet. You fucking moron.
  
  What kind of Ned Flanders fantasy is that anyway? Fatties deserve to be treated rudely anyway. We have tried coddling them. It only makes more of them.
13. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  hey, it's not just the ipad 2 that's 50% thinner than last year!
14. Re:Just For You Disgusting Fatbodies by LongearedBat · 2011-07-23 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see. I was whooshed. Thanks for the tip. :)
  I figured that apostrophe use for plurals would differ between the word blackberry (edible) and the name Blackberry, which I thought should be immutable. I guess not.
Certified for Use? by cetroyer · 2011-07-22 14:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Not quite. But for once, the article isn't any more accurate than the Slashdot summary. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), which comes from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a test of the encryption module of a device or software. In this case, it is RIM's proprietary OS that runs on the PlayBook that has had its crypto module validated (PlayBook FIPS certificate). Yes, it is probably the first tablet to achieve this, since most computers leverage Window's validated crypto module (Go here, FIPS certificates, and search for Microsoft). However, meeting FIPS is only part of the process. Federal regulation also requires National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) certification and a test by an approved DoD test lab. After all of that, the device or software will probably be "certified for use in the U.S. government".
1. Re:Certified for Use? by Panaflex · 2011-07-22 16:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You forgot to mention that they only have a level 1 certification - which is the bare minimum set of requirements. The security library was developed by Certicom, - known as the "Security Builder FIPS Module."
  Getting it certified was really just using the existing certification on a new platform - which only requires a security policy update, some known answer tests, and a run through of the self-testing framework (in some cases - the NIST is funny about that). No code review and not a lot of approved lab time is required for a platform port as long as the hardware is similar and software stays the same.
  That's how they got it in and out of NIST in 3 months!
  
  --
  I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
2. Re:Certified for Use? by friedmud · 2011-07-22 17:05 · Score: 2
  
  If you want FIPS on iOS all you have to do is use Good Technologies app: http://good.com/
  Trust me when I say that many government entities are using this to support iOS and Android....
3. Re:Certified for Use? by Shoten · 2011-07-23 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  NIAP certification and DoD testing are not at all required; the vast majority of IT products in use by the government lack these tests. The term for what you described is Common Criteria certification, which is expensive and cumbersome for a vendor to undergo (and only relates to a specific version of a product as well). Also, while you got it right that a FIPS 140-2 certification only applies to a cryptographic module or modules, you also miss that the majority of products that are FIPS 140-2 certified use the modules of another company; the most commonly used one is put out by RSA. In this case, though, Blackberry wrote their own, and it's on the list.
  The important thing about FIPS 140-2 to remember is that only cryptographic modules are certified; if a product does not natively perform encryption in the first place, it's impossible for it to be FIPS 140-2 compliant...but it's also impossible for it to be noncompliant as well.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
4. Re:Certified for Use? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Good Technologies for FIPS on iOS? You should look at their FIPS certification more closely. They claim that their crypto module that was certified for Windows Mobile is portable to iOS and Android with NO source code changes. Considering how different iOS and Android are to Windows, that assertion is very suspect. Also, if many gov't entities are using Good on anything other than Windows Mobile, they are out of compliance...
I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:41 · Score: 0

I wonder how much the government official who moved the PlayBook to the top of the the NITS' stack got payed by RIM...
Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:43 · Score: 0

Apple is on the GSA schedule, has a gov't store, and is just as easy to work with as any of the other large IT companies (Dell, IBM, HP, etc) that regularly do business with the DoD.
An obvious choice, due to security concerns by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-07-22 14:44 · Score: 1

A device that's so hard to get your media, email, and such onto or out of... no one's worried you'll bring one to work and be able to cart off any secrets!

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:An obvious choice, due to security concerns by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-22 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, I'm sorry, since when is BlackBerry Bridge "Hard"? It has an additional requirement of having a BlackBerry phone, but that's not hard, it's an additional requirement.
  And is getting media on or off the Playbook that hard? Certainly Blackberry Desktop Manager supports the playbook, no?
  I think you're confusing "hard" and "different than what I want". If you don't want to do things the way the PlayBook does things, well then, don't buy a PlayBook. If you have to deal with one for work, well, can you honestly say that in an enterprise type environment where the business decides what device you're using, every other aspect of your job is exactly doing things the way you would want? All the health and safety regs, etc.?
  Look, I really like what RIM does. I don't have a Playbook not because I would be frustrated with how it works, but because I don't have a use case for a tablet that's particularly compelling or worth spending the money. But I do have a BlackBerry phone, and will be replacing it with another. Because it works for me like no other solution does. And if that's not why you would buy something... well gosh... I guess I just feel sorry for people who let things other than financial and use considerations be the primary guide for their purchases. Doesn't seem very efficient.
2. Re:An obvious choice, due to security concerns by narcc · 2011-07-23 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  A device that's so hard to get your media, email, and such onto or out of
  This article is about the PlayBook, not the iPad.
  Getting your media or any other kind of file on and off the playbook is brain-dead. Either use the provided software or access it like a USB drive.
  Email? The target market will just use BB Bridge -- instant and secure. Lusers can use the browser or one of many mail apps.
  Let's see what hoops you have to jump through to copy a spreadsheet from your computer to your iPad and back again -- viewing and editing in the interim.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
Regulatory bull by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:48 · Score: 0

This just means rim put more regulatory paperwork and compliance documentation together. Aka bullsh!t paperwork pushing.
christian louboutin clearance by Louboutins · 2011-07-22 14:51 · Score: -1

christian louboutin discount is having regular discount offers that are not possible with local stores and shops.
Disconnect by xuniluser · 2011-07-22 14:59 · Score: 1

With a name like "PlayBook", few bosses will be promoting this device in the work area/enterprise.
1. Re:Disconnect by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the same thing. If there was ever a product name that was completely wrong for the target market. Why not call it the "workbook", "securebook", "blackbook", or just about anything else.
2. Re:Disconnect by real-modo · 2011-07-22 15:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Just for the record:-
  I think the name is intended to be a sports reference, to the list of set plays that a team develops ahead of time.
  The use of metaphors referring to team sports is nearly universal in corporates and Fedland. "She's not a team player" is about the worst thing that could be said of someone. You're expected to "take one for the team" when your boss screws up. And so on.
  So, in RIM's target market, "playbook" is intended to hook into key parts of the cult-ure.
3. Re:Disconnect by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  The name "PlayBook" is supposed to draw a parallel to the sports world, where a playbook is used as a device for storing plans of action. Since this device can be used to store files of value (much like the secret plays of a sports team) the name "playbook" makes sense (as opposed to "WorkBook").
4. Re:Disconnect by VortexCortex · 2011-07-22 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Just for the record:-
  I think the name is intended to be a sports reference, to the list of set plays that a team develops ahead of time.
  Agreed.
  
  The use of metaphors referring to team sports is nearly universal in corporates and Fedland. "She's not a team player" is about the worst thing that could be said of someone.
  ...that is, Unless you're talking about a "higher up" eg: a "Team Leader" -- These are not required to "play by the rules"; See below.
  
  You're expected to "take one for the team" when your boss screws up. And so on.
  Additionally, you may "take one for the team" when your boss simply screws you. In either event it doesn't sound like your "Team Leader" is being a "Team Player"...
  
  So, in RIM's target market, "playbook" is intended to hook into key parts of the cult-ure.
  Thus the tablet supplier must be a company with a name that only a "Team Leader" with a "Team" of "brown-nosers" would love; Clearly, it will be RIM's job.
Idiotic password management by Shivetya · 2011-07-22 15:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

which according to our tech people will not be fixed by Apple until sometime in 2012.
Apparently iOs devices will retry a failing password over and over locking out the account. Happened to me and they told me, next time I change my password on the network delete the network entry from my iPad and recreate it afterward. They determined my iPad spammed the network with my old password the moment I turned it on.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Re:Idiotic password management by mysidia · 2011-07-22 17:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Apparently iOs devices will retry a failing password over and over locking out the account.
  This is a minor nit with the iPad itself, but a MAJOR FLAW in the network device/server the iPad is logging into.
  Before you should talk with Apple about this, you need to talk with whatever vendor is providing that server with the account lockout policy that allows one misconfig'ed device to DoS an account.
  That is... a sane network login server application would tarpit the network device attempting to login, not lock the account itself.
2. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-22 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  That is... a sane network login server application would tarpit the network device attempting to login, not lock the account itself.
  How do you propose to stop an attacker who changes IP and/or MAC addresses with every new password attempt?
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:Idiotic password management by mysidia · 2011-07-22 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  How do you propose to stop an attacker who changes IP and/or MAC addresses with every new password attempt?
  Well... first of all: if you only saw failed attempts from one or two IP addresses, then you can be quite confident that's not what's happening. Second: if you see failed attempts to a user in rapid succession from many IP addresses, then you know something is amiss.
  You've come up with an unusual theoretical, and quite implausible attack. There aren't enough IP addresses out there to change IPs after every new password attempt.
  IP address is not just a free form field a computer can change to whatever it wants -- the IP address you want to use actually has to be routable, otherwise it's useless.
  The only way that makes any sense at all is if the attack source is on the LAN; which means either an internal system has already been compromised, or you have an insider attacking through an inefficient method (trying brute force, when there are much simpler and more successful methods).
  As for someone playing with MAC addresses.... it's called Port Security or 802.1x authentication, esp. in the case of wireless.
  Layer 2 security issues are not something to ignore, for sure; there are ways of addressing all those, and they need to be addressed on their own merits, anyways.
4. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-22 19:51 · Score: 2
  
  IP address is not just a free form field a computer can change to whatever it wants -- the IP address you want to use actually has to be routable, otherwise it's useless.
  
  Botnets. Plus you presume a simple brute-force attack rather than a dictionary attack or something even more specific to the target account like names of family members.
  
  The only way that makes any sense at all is if the attack source is on the LAN; which means either an internal system has already been compromised, or you have an insider attacking through an inefficient method (trying brute force, when there are much simpler and more successful methods).
  
  Neither are reasons to dismiss such a straightforward vulnerability.
  
  As for someone playing with MAC addresses.... it's called Port Security or 802.1x authentication, esp. in the case of wireless.
  
  At which point you are at the same practical result - the only node the user cares about - the one in his hands - is locked out.
  I really don't see a practical use to selectively locking out a device versus simply locking down the account. In either case you've got a user who can't get logged in and is almost certainly going to require a call to the support desk. So selective lockout has minimal benefit but comes with your choice of increased risk or increased complexity and overhead. Certainly not a flaw worthy of bolded, all-caps.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
5. Re:Idiotic password management by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  The principle of locking an account out after a defined number of failed login attempts is a long standing security principle, it significantly reduces the likely success of brute force hacking attempts.
  Before you start jumping to the defense of Apple/the iPad you should perhaps strive to learn a little more about well defined and documented security principles.
  An application that just keeps retrying the same username/password after being told that the combination is wrong is just incredibly stupid and is a good example of incredibly stupid programming of the Homer Simpson variety.
6. Re:Idiotic password management by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  "Apparently iOs devices will retry a failing password over and over locking out the account." ...and that is different from Windows exactly how ?
  Windows does it in all known versions (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008 and 7).
7. Re:Idiotic password management by Serious+Callers+Only · 2011-07-22 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  How do you propose to stop an attacker who changes IP and/or MAC addresses with every new password attempt?
  You certainly don't stop them by locking a legitimate account, or you are making a denial of service trivially easy.
8. Re:Idiotic password management by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  That may be the case, but large organizations essentially all use Active Directory, which does indeed lock the account after multiple login attempts, even from a single device.
9. Re:Idiotic password management by mysidia · 2011-07-23 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Botnets.
  The existence of extreme examples such as botnets is no reason to botch the common case of single user, few devices failing authentication, and have the defect of locking an account as a result of a mistake by one device. The security instrumentation of a system that cannot distinguish between a botnet attack on an account and failed login attempts from one device, or a small number of devices, is fundamentally flawwed.
  It's really rather simple.... if more than 10 failed login attempts occur to an account, from one IP, ban the IP for 30 minutes. If more than 3 failed login attempts fail to an account, then double the delay before an authentication response whether success or fail, for each successive attempt, up to 10 minutes between attempts.
  Oh yeah, and raise the alarm. Because, you see, a 'botnet' attempt at brute force is really the nuclear possibility. We don't build houses with doors whose locks freeze up if 3 wrong keys are tried and require you to call the locksmith, based on the faint possibility that one day a would-be group of 6000 burglars might come by with 1 key per person.
  If your security defenses, alarms, and neighbors don't detect 6000 uninvited burglars in your front lawn, then that would mean you were totally impotent.
  Plus you presume a simple brute-force attack rather than a dictionary attack or something even more specific to the target account like names of family members.
  All dictionary attacks are brute force attacks.
  If your system is susceptible to such a guided brute force attack, then the password security protections are defective. Applications that need to ensure password security will check passwords against a comprehensive dictionary of english words, common names, employee names, and employee details (e.g. phone numbers).
  At which point you are at the same practical result - the only node the user cares about - the one in his hands - is locked out.
  What's that? No it's not. Not once they fix their mistake.
10. Re:Idiotic password management by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  "Apparently iOs devices will retry a failing password over and over locking out the account." ...and that is different from Windows exactly how ? Windows does it in all known versions (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008 and 7).
11. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-23 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  The existence of extreme examples
  On this we will disagree. If you aren't prepared for the extreme case then your security is, pretty much by definition, ineffective.
  
  If your security defenses, alarms, and neighbors don't detect 6000 uninvited burglars in your front lawn, then that would mean you were totally impotent.
  That's a ridiculous analogy. Seriously.
  
  All dictionary attacks are brute force attacks.
  That point was directed your claim that there aren't enough IP addresses to perform a brute force attack one per IP address.
  
  At which point you are at the same practical result - the only node the user cares about - the one in his hands - is locked out.
  What's that? No it's not. Not once they fix their mistake.
  
  So, help me out here, how do they "fix their mistake" when the computer they are using has been locked out?
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
12. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-23 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  You certainly don't stop them by locking a legitimate account, or you are making a denial of service trivially easy.
  It depends on what's more valuable - easy access to the account or protecting what's inside the account. Plus it isn't like a DOS happens in isolation, the user gets locked out and calls the support desk.. Chances are he's going to do exactly the same thing if you lock out the computer he's on or you lock out his account.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
13. Re:Idiotic password management by mysidia · 2011-07-24 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  On this we will disagree. If you aren't prepared for the extreme case then your security is, pretty much by definition, ineffective.
  Then based on your definition, everyone's security is inherently ineffective, and incapable of being remedied.
  By the way, account locking doesn't reduce the chance of a botnet based brute force attack. A typical botnet brute force attack looks like two or three password attempts on a large dictionary of usernames. A botnet brute force attack does not look like a bunch of botnet nodes attempting to connect as one user; coordination of which node would try which password would be a problem, and as a result would be highly inefficient in any case. Brute force attacks are about getting into an unknown system, as any user, not compromising a specific user. Once any user has been compromised, privilege escalatio techniques are utilized to gain access to other accounts, and ultimately other users' data.
  In reality, what is considered effective security implementation is security implementation designed to prevent high probability events, without hurting the business in the process. Because every extra security measure grafted on has a cost, security is not about dealing with extreme examples.
  Regardless of security measures taken, there will always be low probability events that will defeat all security measures, unless the security measures shutdown the business entirely, so that there is no data that arises to be stolen or systems to be compromised in the first place.
  For example, a situation equally extreme to a botnet issuing a 1:1 distributed brute force attack against a single user, would be a a group of masked foreign nationals pulls up on a weekend in a black van, armed with machine guns, disables the alarms, with the help of their insider at the alarm company, cuts all comm lines, breaks in, shoots anyone standing in their way on the path to the server room, cuts through all the doors into the server room, and removes all the servers and backup tapes; within 20 minutes the servers are in a different country.
  And there's no security measure you can implement that will make that impossible.
14. Re:Idiotic password management by swalve · 2011-07-24 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Fail.
  
  The point of the complaint is that if the iDevice has the wrong password cached, it will keep trying that password forever instead of giving up. The problem, therefore, is that it will lock the user out. This is different from Blackberry, for example, which freaks out immediately, alerts the user and quits trying the same password over and over.
  
  The complaint is NOT about locking as a security measure, but that the iDevices behave in a way that causes accounts to get locked out needlessly.
15. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-24 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  In reality, what is considered effective security implementation is security implementation designed to prevent high probability events, without hurting the business in the process.
  No. Your focus on "high probability" is misguided. That's a minimum requirement, not the end. Effective security is a trade off of cost for coverage. The huge gaping flaw in your argument here is that:
  Locking out an account is practically the same as locking out a device as far as the user is concerned. You've failed to address that point twice now, despite being directly questioned on it. So I am pretty sure you understand it, but just don't want to admit it.
  So, ultimately your argument comes down to increased complexity and increased cost in order to reduce your coverage with no other practical benefits. That's not just bad security, that's bad engineering in general.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
16. Re:Idiotic password management by mysidia · 2011-07-24 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  No. Your focus on "high probability" is misguided. That's a minimum requirement, not the end. Effective security is a trade off of cost for coverage. The huge gaping flaw in your argument here is that: Locking out an account is practically the same as locking out a device as far as the user is concerned. You've failed to address that point twice now, despite being directly questioned on it. So I am pretty sure you understand it, but just don't want to admit it.
  It's not practically the same thing. It's not even close. Their 'device' is already not working, because it has incorrect credentials. With just one of their devices blocked (such as their work iPad at home they don't have on hand to change the password on), they can still access their account from whatever device they are actually using, such as their computer at work, or the iPhone they are carrying on them.
  The user might not use the blocked device that often, in which case, its tarpitting/deactivation of the broken device could go unnoticed for a very long amount of time.
  The assumption, then, is once they DO discover the device is failing authentication, they simply fix that device by correcting the password, and within the hour, the 'block' will expire, allowing the device to resume, probably long before the average user calls anyone about this.
  On the other hand.... if the device's auth failures lock their account; the effect is completely surprising to the average user. They will have no idea what has happened, and they will probably call the support desk irate demanding their account be fixed.
  Their account gets unlocked..... 20 minutes later, it's locked again because their iPad at home has made 3 more failed sync attempts.
  So not only is it equivalent, now you have a situation where the user can't repair the situation, because they have an incorrectly configured device attempting bogus authentications, which is out of their reach to correct, until the end of the day when they go home.
  Now... for the sake of argument... let's just say this user is a CEO or sales guy, and the company could lose hundreds of millions if he can't get access to his e-mail to follow up, because some defective software has caused his entire account to be locked when it's not necessary....
17. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-24 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  they can still access their account from whatever device they are actually using, such as their computer at work, or the iPhone they are carrying on them
  Ah, so now you've changed from the general case to this specific case. The vast, vast majority of users who need to log into a system have only one system from which to do it from.
  Your entire argument fails on that singlular premise.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
18. Re:Idiotic password management by tlhIngan · 2011-07-25 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so now you've changed from the general case to this specific case. The vast, vast majority of users who need to log into a system have only one system from which to do it from.
  Your entire argument fails on that singlular premise.
  So... a guy who gets his account locked out because of his iPad ... has the iPad as his only device? The guy with the iPad getting his account locked out - already breaks the assumption that it's his only device, excepting very few rare circumstances.
  And think of it the other way - if it's so easy to lock out an account, all any hacker needs to do is lock out the sysadmins. Think about it - lock out all the domain administrator accounts, and the network is now yours to explore.
  Oh wait, the sysadmin accounts have another account that can log them in (local user)? Well, that can happen, and said attacker can keep trying said account to lock them back out in the time it takes to walk to the data center, go to the domain controller, unlock the account and log off. (What, you want to RDP in via your locked-out PC?).
  Malfunctioning devices are common. I've had my account locked out purely from *Samba* on one of our Linux servers. if you don't lock out a device, any one device can promptly go and lock out an entire company by attacking the userlist.
19. Re:Idiotic password management by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-25 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  So... a guy who gets his account locked out because of his iPad
  
  Jesus, diid you miss the entire message you quoted? SO what if this particular case is about a someone with an ipad? The guy went off with BIG BOLD CAPS about how it was a massive fatal totally unacceptable flaw when in reality its a very rare case so not worth all the increased risk and cost to handle it in code rather than an exception to a human.
  
  Think about it - lock out all the domain administrator accounts, and the network is now yours to explore.
  So this hacker already knows what the admin accounts are and there are no admins currently logged in and then you wrote something unintelligible about using regular accounts. Sounds like more hand-waving about a super unlikely event in order to justify increased complexity and risk in normal operations.
  
  if you don't lock out a device, any one device can promptly go and lock out an entire company by attacking the userlist.
  Such an attack ain't going to happen in a vacuum - if the entire company gets locked out (a) most users will still be logged in and (b) a human is going to notice right quick and handle the issue manually.
  I don't see either of you making a compelling argument that the increased complexity of tracking where login attempts are coming from and giving a pass to failed logins from different devices is even close to a net win for anything like a common usage scenario, much less an absolutely critical feature that should be in every single authentication system.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
right choice but wrong move... by nerdyalien · 2011-07-22 15:14 · Score: 1

Blackberry PlayBook is... how should I put it... hmmm... cramming in a roll-cage and bucket-seats into a family saloon.
Certainly, any digital toy can escape the hands of its owner. But mobile phones being with us for good decade or so, we rarely misplace it. On the the contrary, tablets being the new toy in our life, and PlayBook is in a smaller form factor; chances of misplacing is rather high. So it is somewhat justifiable to include the "bridging" feature. Then again, it kills the usability as a standalone device.
Personally I like the PlayBook. Recently I went to a mobile retailer, where they had both ipad and playbook demo units. I wanted to check some details on the internet. So I went to the big screen ipad... Alas! website I wanted to access was a flash site. Then I switched to a PlayBook, voila... accessed the site without an issue!
Good luck PlayBook! ... hate to say this, but it will have a painful future with other competitors..
I still don't think people are getting it by erroneus · 2011-07-22 15:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

The last time we had a RIM/Blackberry discussion, I went on about what is good about RIM/Blackberry and what they are doing right. Suffice to say, they are all about business and getting things done.
In contrast, all the other things in the smartphone movement are about fun distractions and what new, innovative and original thing can be done next... oh yeah, and getting sued or suing over it. With tablets, the firs thing in most people's mind was "what do I need this for?" and the most common criticism was "this is just a bigger phone!" And almost ALL of this focuses attention on the client side of things.
RIM/Blackberry's idea is that the phone is one of two parts of the whole. The other part is the server side. It is the server side which integrates the client device with the business stuff. If you're not integrating with your business, whatever that is, you're not getting what you need where business is concerned.
iDevice and Android use the opposite approach where the client side is the only thing. This approach is fine for Apple, because Apple wants a piece of everything the users does or experiences. This approach is fine for Google because they are getting what they want from the user as well. But neither of things things care much about what business wants,
But the majority of people here will continue to chant "RIM/Blackberry is letting the world pass them by! They are dying and they don't even know it!" I just can't subscribe to that point of view. There no question that there is a huge market for consumer oriented devices which includes iThings and Androids and that market is booming (and will have an expected bust eventually).
But that's not the market RIM/Blackberry lives in. They live in business and government markets where the requirements are different and among these are reliability, predictability, stability, workability and a lot of things that utterly bore the consumer public. The consumer public is a collection if solitary individuals and they only need to work (or play) the way they want to and they crave different things and new things all of the time. Government and business are entities comprised of teams of people who need to be able to do things in concert with each other. Enabling that need over handheld mobile devices is a tremendous challenge that they have mostly been able to meet and continue to meet.
It's not hard to imagine what you would be able to do with a tablet over a phone where Blackberry is concerned. The ability of a tablet to deliver and interact with information is quite obvious and that's what Blackberry is for. And for many business people, it can easily replace their luggable laptops. What is harder to imagine is how tablets benefit consumers. For most, it is a new shiny thing to play with and they will realize before too long that they don't need to be burdened with the size/weight/fragility of the tablet devices when comparing that against the benefits they get from their use. (A consumer's ROI analysis.)
It's nice to say that the RIM tablet is the first tablet to gain NIST approval, but I suspect it will be the only tablet to gain NIST approval unless Apple or an Android maker gets into making business integration servers which integrate the handhelds with the enterprise which is hard to imagine. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't want to do business or government -- it's too heavy of a responsibility for them. Android makers are more beholden to the carriers than the consumer or any business. It is just unimaginable for the tide to change in that regard.
1. Re:I still don't think people are getting it by Kagato · 2011-07-22 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  I second the thought about Black Berry and the corporate world. However, the lack of native black berry functions like email and calendar will kill them if not corrected soon. That is a function that corporate clients expect. I think HP will likely get NIST certified with their WebOS tablet and Microsoft will likely team up with someone to get a Windows 7 Tablet certified.
2. Re:I still don't think people are getting it by JaredOfEuropa · 2011-07-22 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  I agree that the corporate market and the consumer market are different, and that both RIM and Apple/Google currently serve those respective markets quite well.
  
  What is harder to imagine is how tablets benefit consumers. For most, it is a new shiny thing to play with and they will realize before too long that they don't need to be burdened with the size/weight/fragility of the tablet devices when comparing that against the benefits they get from their use. (A consumer's ROI analysis.)
  About this I am not so sure. For one, the business market is shifting, and corporations are now pondering the "consumerisation of IT". Many consumers already carry a smartphone or tablet of their own, and the last thing they want is for their boss to give them an additional one to drag around. If given a choice, many people would prefer to get corporate email on their personal device instead of getting a corporate smartphone/tablet. Around my clients' offices, as soon as the email servers were adapted for use with smart phones, managers were replacing their free Blackberries with iPhones en masse. Looking at the state of the UI of both devices at the time, it is not hard to see why (though the UI has been vastly improved on more recent Blackberry models).
  
  Consumers like tablets for the same reasons as business people: in many situations it's a good alternative to a laptop or desktop PC: quick to boot, easy to use and conventient to carry. I know many people who have a laptop at home for browsing or watching movies on the couch / in the kitchen, etc. Now that those people have tablets, those laptops are pretty much left unused. And you can bet that those people will want to use their own tablet for business as well, rather than having to make do with one provided by the company.
  
  Companies are looking for ways to safely allow personal devices to access corporate data; they are not waiting for a business-ready tablet which they can then hand out to their employees. The RIM tablet is not going to change that. With the consumer and business markets converging, RIM is going to have to compete in both if they want to survive; simply being the one with the best security isn't going to cut it anymore.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:I still don't think people are getting it by Old+VMS+Junkie · 2011-07-22 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  Spoken like a marketer for RIM. RIM is a dead man walking in the enterprise. Yes, they're the only ones to have their own management software but there are a dozen vendors lining up with mobile device management solutions. Vendors like Good Technology and MobileIron are making enterprise-grade equivalents to BES for the iPhone/iPad and Android space. The problem, as it's always been, is applications. It's a nightmare to write anything for BlackBerry. Comparatively speaking, writing apps for iPhones and Androids is a breeze. RIM's percentage of the enterprise market is falling and will continue to fall. They're going the way of so many market leaders before them who thought that once you got to the top you'd automagically stay on the top.
4. Re:I still don't think people are getting it by gl4ss · 2011-07-23 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  what's killing bb is that they killed their good form factor.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:I still don't think people are getting it by narcc · 2011-07-23 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I second the thought about Black Berry and the corporate world. However, the lack of native black berry functions like email and calendar will kill them if not corrected soon. That is a function that corporate clients expect
  Some people see this as a huge advantage. Chances are that you're already managing any number of BB phones -- with BB Bridge, all of the features you want are handled instantly, with IT needing to do *absolutely nothing* to integrate the PlayBook into their environment.
  If a PlayBook gets lost, it's no big deal. All your important data is secure on your already managed phone. Once the bridge connection is broken (say, by being out of range) NO data is stored on the playbook.
  This also means that multiple employees can share the same unit, and still have instant (secure) access to their data. Again, IT need not involve themselves at all.
  RIM put it best as your BlackBerry, Amplified. Everything you've come to expect in terms of security and productivity, on the big screen.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
neogod politicos oblivious to their employers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:22 · Score: 0

towards us, they behave like the walking dead, unless they're planning/carrying out
further attacks (media, pocketbook, weather, deception, threat laced
fearmongering, glowbull warmongering etc...) on us mere mortals & our last rights. can they
be disarmed/discharged?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, we
don't care.
thanks again
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
NFL News Today by charlin30 · 2011-07-22 15:30 · Score: -1

The man 1Wholesale Jersey For Salesuspected of attacks throughout the weekend class is denied claims that he tried to blackmail the bengals arrested after ran back to the MLB Jerseys Free ShippingCincinnati According to the police report, Jerseys Online Free Shippingclose to the "Miami Clavens class," Charles says, a former roommate, Austin the corner 5. On Sunday, repeatedly hit him in the face, their fist after cheap nba jerseys for saledeclaration closed "need to talk about their problems." Benson was charged with misdemeanor assault with injury. He posted a $10,000 bond and was released just before Sunday afternoonMLB Jerseys Online Free Shipping. Thomas Crosley, the attorney for Clavens "Miami" Charles, the individual involved in the incident with Cedricnfl jerseys for sale Benson this weekend, contacted us yesterday to demand a "settlement" meeting. This attorney stated that if we did not respond within a short period, Mr. Charles would respond to media requests, including a request for an interview from Cheap Wholesale Jerseys OnlineTMZ. The statement added that "Cedric did not act without provocation." Crosley released a cheap mlb jerseys statement Monday denying any attempted extortion: majestic jerseys cheap NBA Jerseys NFL Jerseys MLB Jerseys NHL Jerseys Youth MLB Majestic Jerseys New York Yankees NFL Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Nfl Jerseys nfl jerseys cheap Dallas Cowboys Jerseys cheap mlb jerseys nfl jerseys for sale nba chicago bulls #23 jordan regular red Cheap Wholesale Jerseys cheap jerseys online NHL Hockey Jerseys MLB Baseball Jerseys NBA Basketball Jerseys Philadelphia Phillies Jerseys customized nfl jerseys nfl cheap jerseys authentic jerseys Colorado Rockies Jerseys NFL Football Jerseys Cheap Wholesale Jerseys online Colorado Rockies Jerseys Minnesota Twins Jerseys New York Yankees Jerseys Toronto Blue Jays Jerseys Tampa Bay Rays Jerseys San Francisco Giants Jerseys New York Mets Jerseys Boston Red Sox Jerseys Atlanta Braves Majestic Athletic "Earlier this week Clavens Charles was the victim of an unprovoked violent Cheap Jerseys Onlineassault by Cedric Benson that resulted in his hospitalization. Today Clavens Charles has been the victim of an equally violent media smear campaign by the attorneys representing Cedric Benson. . . . No money demand was ever made to Cedric fast shipping nba jerseysBenson or his legal counsel. Money was never mentioned by us at any time." Strangely, surgery TMZ get photos, prince Charles, the injuries we warn you, quite the images.
1. Re:NFL News Today by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  is it me or is this the worst possible target audience for this specific spam.
It's easy to get NIST approval.... by pebbert · 2011-07-22 15:43 · Score: 2

If you don't include an e-mail client !!!!!
backberry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 15:57 · Score: 0

I like backberry,my cell phone is bb too
www.hi-swat.com
Who? by Osgeld · 2011-07-22 16:06 · Score: 1

didn't they have a pager with a keypad?
NOT approved, only FIPS 140-2 certified by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 16:32 · Score: 0

"certified for use in U.S. government agencies" -- Very misleading. FIPS 140-2 certification is for cryptographic modules. There are a lot of other criteria a device must meet to be approved.
Sent from my iPad
For crying out loud by uofitorn · 2011-07-22 18:18 · Score: 1

The submission was clearly written by a RIM PR rep. Simon says "SILENCE"

--
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
no leaks from playbook by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 18:50 · Score: 0

playbook is so unconfortable you will not do anything usefull there.
I'm sure by Swampash · 2011-07-22 19:57 · Score: 0

The three people who have bought Playbooks - and the two who will buy Playbooks before the end of the year - will be relieved.
CBSE notes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 20:47 · Score: 0

2011 Examination Assignment Help Board Examination 2010 CBSE News Central Board of Secondary Education Class X Class X Latest Mathematics Sample Papers EXAMS Final exams homework help Marking Scheme Marking Scheme for Class X Marking Scheme for Class XII Mathematics Online Assignment Help Online homework help Police Police.cbse notes, cbse sample paper, cbse guess paper, ncert,cbse books, cbse solutions, cbse study material, cbse answers .DAV Public School coming Question Papers Sample Papers Sample Parers. Scheme of Scholarships Scholarships School Websires University Students.cbsekey provide Latest CBSE cbse notes, cbse sample paper, cbse guess paper, ncert,cbse books, cbse solutions, cbse study material, cbse answers with solutions cbse guess paper cbse test paper chapter wise notes study material for revesion purpose.and here you can download free ncert solutions related to cbse NCERT Books.
corporations and government by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-07-22 21:03 · Score: 1
Rather than maximising the amount of money wasted on profit for corporations, when will government make it an aim to minimise the amount it does not produce in-house at cost? Entirely private innovation, where "private" means no connection to government or academia and "innovation" is meant in the technical rather than Apple marketing sense, is rare - if the need is to do something new, and the initial outlay is not too great, you'd be better off hiring and treating well the best people for the job. (Intelligence agencies know this, but no other branch of government seems to.)
Making a tablet is a matter of throwing a few existing components together. Government is large enough and sufficiently well-equipped to manage that bit. Hell, one man with good tooling equipment and soldering skills is, although you'd need something more than that to ensure a sturdy build.
But, no. Modern government is mostly a tool for skimming off funds for friends to those in government and collecting a nice kickback - if an advance fee hasn't already been paid as campaign funds.
There are two problems with government spending which explain most debt problems in the West:
- Vastly inflating the cost of everything by farming off to the private sector - this includes war, much of which is on behalf of private interests;
- Refusal to increase pension age in line with life expectancy.
The second problem, affecting the common man, is of course being dealt with in some European nations. The first, much more insidious, is being dealt with by selling off more government, making the problem worse.
This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 23:01 · Score: 0

Hi guys. You got all taken in for a ride by the PR release. Here's why.
The FIPS140-2 standard recognizes 4 levels of validation. Level 1, which Blackberry Piece Of Crap achieved, basically means "the tablet can execute cryptographic algorithms". Unsurprisingly, anyone willing to shell out a small amount of cash can get this; for instance, OpenSSL is level 1 validated.
The 3 other levels rely increasingly on hardware / software, and actually mean something in terms of security. Level 1 is like saying "AES works like it does in the spec". It has nothing to do with security, apart from very basic requirements that any OS can meet.
Approval by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 23:57 · Score: 0

It's my understanding that NIST does not "approve" (subjective) anything. Rather, NIST "certifies" (objective) with respect to some standard. May sound like a small difference but I'm certain the lawyers have made sure marketing is not putting "Government Approved" on anything.
First? by drinkypoo · 2011-07-23 00:16 · Score: 1

Did NIST not exist when they were using GRiDPad 1910s for inventory, or were they simply not approved devices?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Obama's iPad by arivera71 · 2011-07-23 04:05 · Score: 1

That hasn't stopped Obama from showing off his iPad in public. Is he worried about NIST?