Ask Slashdot: Most Secure Mobile OS?
Lexta writes "So I'm contemplating my next smartphone purchase, and I've been a little put off by all of the security exploits posted on Slashdot over the last few months, particularly for Android. So, what's the most secure stock standard (not jailbroken) mobile OS?"
Both Android and iOS have been plagued with exploits. Android has tons of trojans, while iOS has remote exploits (most of those iPhone jail breaking methods are based on remote root exploits). The only current smartphone OS that is safe against exploits and vulnerabilities is Windows Phone 7. Microsoft has really improved their security within the last 5 years - even on the desktop Windows most exploits are against third party apps like Flash or Java, not Windows itself.
So, if you want to get a smartphone that is safe against exploits and malware, Windows Phone 7 is your only answer. I would suggest some of the Nokia phones - people have been really happy with them.
RIM's OS, especially due to the way they handle communications, is by far (as far as I know) the most secure OS. And neither iOS nor Android look particularly secure to me, since every other week you see some news of them getting exploited.
We need a way to moderate articles.
It's called the Firehose.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Thanks for the LOL, only someone completely ignorant of the history of cryptology could state that pen/paper have never been broken.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Normally I'd otherwise shit all over symbian, but, why not Symbian? Years on the market, it should've been proven one way or the other by now.
Also, what level of paranoia are we talking? State or industry secrets? Personal paranoia?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If it is not jailbroken it is DEFINITELY not secure. With carrier spyware and apps that are not under your control, the first step to security is making it YOURS and yours alone.
Once you are to that point, then you can BEGIN evaluating the core OS for security.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
What is your threat model? Do you use it for websurfing? Download lots of kewl apps? For the latter, from which app store?
I suspect that iOS is a bit more vulnerable on the web browser side, as android has a fair bit better sandboxing which means an exploit of the browser takes more work to fully p0wn the phone, while in iOS-land, 'p0wn the brower == p0wn the phone'
But OTOH, Apple is a much better curator: with only the official App store, and with bad-actor app-developers and apps a rarity, the Apple App Store is very safe.
Android? Not so much. Even the official Google store seems to rely too much on the Android sandboxing to keep users safe (when users just say 'ok' to anything needing scary permissions), and other App Stores are a vile abomination.
Finally, anything that doesn't say "Nexus" on it should be considered end-of-lifed before you buy it. Apple patches things for a long time, so old vulnerabilites shouldn't worry their user base. But Android phones, since they are pretty much EOL'ed right from the start, often never receive critical browser and related security patches, security patches which, due to the open nature, can pretty much be reverse engineered by a competent exploit developer.
So, my ranking: Nexus Phone > (slightly) iPhone >>> generic "Android" phone
Test your net with Netalyzr
There was a time when the most secure (consumer) desktop OS was the Mac -- because there were so few in service that the bad guys spent all their time and effort on Windows. By that measure, the most secure mobile environment is Windows Phone 7.
A corporate-based phone (Blackberry) is going to make corporate security more of a priority than usability
I haven't noticed any problems with usability. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Security doesn't "get in the way" at all on the platform.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Since TFS was probably submitted by someone in the US, we can only reluctantly recommend the phone he is not allowed to have. Nokia decided not to embarrass their Lumia models in the USA, UK, Japan, Germany by releasing the N9 in competition.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Yeah, like you're going to get an objective answer here. Slashdot doesn't have experts. It has OS bigots.
That being said, the most secure mobile OS is the one on the phone operated by someone who doesn't install ad-supported "free" apps, who password-protects the phone, doesn't load pirated software, and who enables remote wipe/locate-my-phone functionality.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/01/nsa-builds-own-model-of-android-phone-wants-you-to-do-the-same/
Okay, so it's only off-the-shelf parts, but if you really want a mobile device that can earn the label "secure," (software ain't a thing w/o hardware) you're probably going to want something vetted by a security organization/company like....well...the NSA.
coding is life
"put off by all of the security exploits posted on Slashdot over the last few months, particularly for Android" Funny you should single out Android because IOS has also had plenty of exploits and security holes despite (or maybe because of) Apple's walled-garden approach to software development, vetting, etc. I know this for a fact...I wrote a research paper on it.
The N900 and N9 are full blown Unix/Linux machines with all the bells and whistles that come with a non-neutered version of the GNU/Linux environment.
That being said, they support many Unix/Linux security mechanisms, but if you want proof, how about full disk encryption for starters?
jdb2
I hear this custom Android build is pretty secure, if you can get your hands on it of course.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.