Military doesn't like Apple.

D

designer

Registered
Check this out

Military throws out Apple from their lab.

From Maccentral

Oh well, I don't know if military knows what they are doing.

It has been proven more than enough that there is big security problem with Win...

Why is it so hard make them believe? Because their head is as hard as rock?
 
Stupid army...
Let's hope their systems gets hacked, with the hackers leaving a message:
"This system is hacked by terrorists..."
;)
 
Makes me feel a lot safer. :rolleyes:

As long as it wouldn't screw up too much sensitive information that could pose a threat, I do hope that someone takes down their entire network with a worm, virus, or simple DoS attack.
 
The Pentagon replaced all it's PC's about 18 months ago due to excessive breaches of security and the 'nuisance' of virus'.

They changed over to Macs before OSX was even out. But i bet they're all having fun now!
 
Well i have to say i am impressed!!!

Is it the pentagon that did that?no wonder they have so many security breachhes!!!!!!

CIAO
 
Military throws out Apple from their lab.
Click to expand...

That's just one lab, one office of one branch...

Remember the story from last year where the Navy switched from NT Web Servers to WebStar running under OS 9? They realized that NT/2000/etc were way to vulnerable, and went with the most secure solution available...

Not all of the military are myrmidons...
 
Don't ya guys know that lab is used to test the potential security risk of computers? So they have to import Wintel machines and throw out Apple machines.

:p

j/k
 
ddma

Don't ya guys know that lab is used to test the potential security risk of computers? So they have to import Wintel machines and throw out Apple machines.
Click to expand...

Now it all makes sense to me :)
Thanks man.
 
the military is (or at least trying to) move away from windows to ANYTHING else that is more secure. However, there are certain facilities running what are for now at least, wndows only apps. They are actively searching for alternatives when this is the case.
 
What will be really interesting is if the darwin secure os intitiative pulls through and we get a trusted version of darwin floating about...

trusted OS's are ones in which the administrator can do much much more limiting things when it comes to inter-process communication. The entire system is set up into tiers of security, and different tiers can't communicate with eachother.

The interesting sidenote is a programmer who took advantage of the fact that different tiers can see the priorities of other tier's processes. He modified the priority of one thread and monitored it from a less secure tier to communicate information between the two... at a very low data rate.

Isn't that just cool? Of course, this oversight was corrected.
 
Good grief, you guys. How naive can you be? What makes you think any big organization is able to make good IT decisions? Don't you read Dilbert? Don't you know Dilbert is non-fiction? BTW, hope you're all DNRC members.

And yes, working at the Pentagon I can tell you that they've got so much "lock down" software installed on these computers, that it generates a boat-load of support requests itself. Plus it prevents us from doing our development work, unless we rename all of our programs WORD.EXE.

-Rob
 
I thought I read in a MacAddict a few years ago that the U.S. army got rid of all their wintels and bought G4s. Maybe I am just on crack.

And isnt it illegal to have the airport stuff in France... because the french army used the same frequency ? ahahah!
 
I saw a post last week I think on Slashdot that Microsoft was lobbying the Pentagon to stop using open source software like Linux because its not as secure as Windows.

After I picked myself up from the floor because I was laughing so hard, I realized that Microsoft must be really worried. Outside of Windows and Novell, all other operating systems are Unix-based now. Even IBM's OS/390 for the mainframe is pretty much Unix-like now.

Maybe with OS X, Apple will make a comeback in the military.
 
Symantec recentlyposted something on their website something saying that macs are just as susceptible to virueses as macs and that they didn't necessarily have better security. They say that ahckers will hack anything, and macro viruses can affect macs. They went on to say that many mac users bought their computers for the security. Although this is obviously just a way to get more mac users to buy their software, It is almost entirely wrong. Not only do macs have much better security, but no one makes viruses for the mac because the hackers want to hack as much as possible, no the minority. Unfortunately, I think this will discourage many PC users from buying macs.:(
 
Howdy...

I've been watching this thread quite a bit and have resisted posting a reply till now.

Has anyone considered that the DOD might not be considering Macs because of a security threat thru the network interface? No system is 100% secure as long as it's on a network. PC people can argue that Mac's aren't secure and Mac People can argue the opposite... all day long. DOD systems are fairly well protected from this type of risk regardless of the platform. This might have more to do with Apple's designs not being able to pass a TEMPEST certification for spurious RF transmissions and not an attack thru an ethernet port.

D-
 
The RF issue is not the security hole they are talking about. S**t, anyone can glean a signal from the CRT radiation. The DOD is talking about network security, user security and data security. sorry, but when comparing mac to PC, mac wins hands down. And when's the last time you used a computer NOT connected to a network? this is a moot point when discussing security issues. I worked in the ROK (intel) and any sensitive info i or my CO needed resided on our PBs (albeit with some proprietary security built in).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top