Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
This is true for the same reasons that a decade ago Mac OSX was considered more secure than Windows. Its a function of install base. As soon as Windows Phone has 100's of million of users exploits will be published.
You mean Linux itself isn't better security wise either, it's just that the (desktop) market share is so low?
Android may use the Linux kernel, but it isn't kernel exploits that are the main concern, it's app API exploits.
Not really true anymore. I've had a Lumia 800 since november and the only two things I'm really missing now is a native app for Google+ (though the mobile web version works fine) and something that can talk to the OBD2 Bluetooth dongle I have for my car. Not exactly your Angry Birds of smartphone apps. Also, a lot of the WP7 apps feel more polished than their Android versions. The Facebook app for instance.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
"Both Android and iOS have been plagued with exploits"
"The only current smartphone OS that is safe against exploits and vulnerabilities is Windows Phone 7"
"even on the desktop Windows most exploits are against third party apps like Flash or Java, not Windows itself"
"if you want to get a smartphone that is safe against exploits and malware, Windows Phone 7 is your only answer"
You have absolutely no idea what you're writing, do you? I'm amazed this got upvoted 5 points and labelled Informative.
Although the number of iPhone apps is amazing, the limited number of apps is the least of Windows phone's problems. With both my Androids and N900 I got most of what I needed and I've always been able to show off to iPhone people if needed. It's worth reading between the lines of Andrew Orlowski's Lumia 700 review. Remember that he's a total Microsoft Fanboi but even so, he often makes pretty perceptive comments such as the ones about fonts. The key thing is to realise that Windows Phone is designed to look good in the shop, but hasn't actually been designed to work. The terrible battery life and design make a phone you can't actually use properly. Think of tiles for example; about 8-10 fit on a screen where normally you would have 20-25 icons. This is great for display and selling where almost no apps have been installed and you are just learning which are which. Five months down the line, when you have 150-200 apps, it suddenly doesn't seem like a good trade off.
This general trade off of actual functionality for things which sell Microsoft products goes on through the design and brings us straight back to the topic; security. For example: your contacts in a Windows Phone are entirely stored on your online service, almost certainly Facebook unless you change it yourself. By design, there's no private place to store contacts you don't want shared. The first question with security is not "is this implementation done right". The real question is "who is this working for". This same user hostile attitude continues through the DRM implemenaton
When Microsoft sets up something equivalent to the Data Liberation Front, then we will be able to talk about Windows Phone as a secure operating system. Not a day before.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();