Topic: Apples for the Army

[Death_Merchant]

http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/12/20/apple-army-hackers-tech-security-cx_ag_1221army.html

Money quote: "Those are some of the most attacked computers there are. But the attacks used against them are designed for Windows-based machines, so they shrug them off," he says.

"He" is Lieutenant Colonel C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of enterprise information systems

Let the platform zealots descend like locusts upon this thread!

[Zenister]

if you read thru the lines you will notice every application mentioned is for 'chairborne warriors' (and computers that attach to the 'outside' internet)

 there are no tactical systems running macs in use at all that I am currently aware of.. the majority are still Sun Solaris based (although not in a form Sun would recognize or support directly any longer) with a few windows boxes used as thin clients. More Windows boxes are creeping in for some BFA's (Battlefield Functional Areas really just another means of defining multiple system roles under one umbrella catagory) as many of the older legacy systems are being phased out

[Just plain old Punisher]

Eh, use the computer system that meets your requirments.

It isn't a f*cking religion people, it's a freakin computer.

You don't owe it your alliegance.

[Zenister]

Eh, use the computer system that meets your requirments.

this (not platform allegiance)was my point. ATM the only 'military requirements' Mac's meet are those of office workers, and while Sun certainly isnt cheap, I have a hard time seeing Steve Jobs 'opening  up' the Macs to the kinds of 3rd party modifications nearly every tactical military system under goes..

[Nemesis]

Eh, use the computer system that meets your requirments.

It isn't a f*cking religion people, it's a freakin computer.

You don't owe it your alliegance.

Which is why I'm in favor of governments mandating that the software they use for creating documents to use open standards such as ODF.  That way if you need to exchange documents with the government they don't dictate your software.

[Death_Merchant]

Exactly.
A diverse system is less vulnerable to a single point attack.

Behold the shenanigans of our North Korean friends...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_cyberwarfare.html

This will only get worse.

[Nemesis]

Exactly.
A diverse system is less vulnerable to a single point attack.

Behold the shenanigans of our North Korean friends...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_cyberwarfare.html

This will only get worse.

Software monoculture.  One breed all with the same vulnerabilities.  The whole system could be crashed by a single virus (think Independence Day).  It happened to the internet once before with the Morris Worm.  Back then the Internet wasn't something most people knew about.  Now it could be much more damaging.

I'm quite happy to see Microsoft continue to exist.  I just want there to be other major players.  Anyone who has the technical ability and desire to move into the market place.   No one should be excluded because one company controlls a vital data format or connection protocol that blocks interpreting system.

[Just plain old Punisher]

You guys are operating under the mistaken assumption that essential government and military traffic goes over the internet.

It does not.

They have their own secure networks that do not rely on civil infrastructure to work.

Interoperability is the key here. Standards must be maintained, if you have systems that are too diverse as far as hardware and software is concerned -- then you end up with problems, primairly getting the damn things to talk to each other.

[Zenister]

Interoperability is the key here. Standards must be maintained, if you have systems that are too diverse as far as hardware and software is concerned -- then you end up with problems, primairly getting the damn things to talk to each other.

"Integration" (and the testing required to ensure it meets the military reliability and interface standards keeps lots of us employed 

however one of the reasons more and more MS systems are appearing in tactical applications is the ease and cost with which they can be replaced.. there is no point in attempting to ruggidize a system to withstand hostile fire if its simpler and easy to remove and replace when it fails/is damaged, and a surplus of parts can be easily kept on hand. ofc mission essential and 'life support' equipment always has higher reliability requirements.

[Nemesis]

You guys are operating under the mistaken assumption that essential government and military traffic goes over the internet.

It does not.

They have their own secure networks that do not rely on civil infrastructure to work.

More accurately we assume that:

a/ There are connected military computers which are important.  That assumption is based on the people who have been charged for hacking into such systems already.

b/ That "accidental" or illicit connections can be made that connect systems that are not supposed to be connected.  By illicit I mean unauthorized not intentionally criminal.

c/ That people make mistakes and transfer infected data between isolated systems.

Interoperability is the key here. Standards must be maintained, if you have systems that are too diverse as far as hardware and software is concerned -- then you end up with problems, primairly getting the damn things to talk to each other.

Which is why I said:

Anyone who has the technical ability and desire to move into the market place.   No one should be excluded because one company controlls a vital data format or connection protocol that blocks interpreting system.

With closed (software) systems it is extremely difficult to know if a patch or "upgrade" breaks those standards and endangers the otherwise secure system.

[Just plain old Punisher]

a/ There are connected military computers which are important.  That assumption is based on the people who have been charged for hacking into such systems already.

Not really.

Most of the time when people hack government or military computers, it's the public webpages and the like. Essential data is almost never compromised.

b/ That "accidental" or illicit connections can be made that connect systems that are not supposed to be connected.  By illicit I mean unauthorized not intentionally criminal.

True, this does indeed happen from time to time. However, the nature of the networks makes it very difficult for one or a small group of computers to disrupt major portions of the network.

c/ That people make mistakes and transfer infected data between isolated systems.

This happens too, but as I said, the nature of the networks tends to isolate disruptive elements on the network.

I'm not saying that military and government networks are invulnerable...I'm only stating that they are FAR more robust to attack than the civil internet.