Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security - Linux

This is a discussion on Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security - Linux ; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...A3y0_W4w8jtBAF Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks more heterogeneous might make ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

  1. Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...A3y0_W4w8jtBAF

    Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs to
    make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks more
    heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to compromise an
    entire group of computers.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:

    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >
    > Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    > enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    > to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    > networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    > to compromise an entire group of computers.


    Why do we care about these Macs?



    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:13n7ffgjplroa9e@news.supernews.com...
    "PEDRO LITTLE" wrote in message
    news:4773aef3$0$25999$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...A3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>
    >> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >> to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks
    >> more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to
    >> compromise an entire group of computers.
    >>
    >>


    > Why do we care about these Macs?


    Why do you liars ^h^h^h "advocates" care so much about Windows?




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:

    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >
    > Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    > enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    > to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    > networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    > to compromise an entire group of computers.


    Next in the lineup, the new all-white stylishly-redesigned iAbrams tank...



  5. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:03:52 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:13n7ffgjplroa9e@news.supernews.com... "PEDRO LITTLE"
    > wrote in message
    > news:4773aef3$0$25999$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>>
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>>
    >>> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >>> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding
    >>> Macs to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    >>> networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    >>> to compromise an entire group of computers.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Why do we care about these Macs?

    >
    > Why do you liars ^h^h^h "advocates" care so much about Windows?


    I'm not a liar, asswipe.

    ... and whose puppet are you.


    --
    Rick

  6. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    "spinner" wrote in message
    news:13n7fvtl0370f9f@news.supernews.com...
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:
    >
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    > bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>
    >> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >> to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    >> networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    >> to compromise an entire group of computers.

    >
    > Next in the lineup, the new all-white stylishly-redesigned iAbrams tank...


    Which is rumored to have an integrated iPod docking station.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    * PEDRO LITTLE fired off this tart reply:

    >
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...A3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >
    > Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    > enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs to
    > make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks more
    > heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to compromise an
    > entire group of computers.


    "Might?"

    Sounds like he ain't too sure. Oh yeah:

    "He said the Army should deal with a broader range of vendors to
    increase competition and harden I.T. defenses. But thus far, the Army
    has allowed only a trickle of Macs to enter military facilities. The
    Army buys only about 1,000 Macs during its twice-a-year buying
    seasons."

    . . .

    "Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators said Apple had to
    patch security flaws five times as much as Microsoft. "I love my
    Macs, but in terms of security, they're behind the curve, compared to
    Windows," Miller told Forbes."

    Miller added that the Army needs a better security strategy than just
    adding Macs to the mix.

    --
    El mac es más seguro que su mama.

  8. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:HbRcj.25841$k27.15092@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..
    >* PEDRO LITTLE fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...A3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>
    >> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >> to
    >> make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks
    >> more
    >> heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to compromise an
    >> entire group of computers.

    >
    > "Might?"
    >
    > Sounds like he ain't too sure. Oh yeah:
    >
    > "He said the Army should deal with a broader range of vendors to
    > increase competition and harden I.T. defenses. But thus far, the Army
    > has allowed only a trickle of Macs to enter military facilities. The
    > Army buys only about 1,000 Macs during its twice-a-year buying
    > seasons."
    >
    > . . .
    >
    > "Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators said Apple had to
    > patch security flaws five times as much as Microsoft. "I love my
    > Macs, but in terms of security, they're behind the curve, compared to
    > Windows," Miller told Forbes."
    >
    > Miller added that the Army needs a better security strategy than just
    > adding Macs to the mix.
    >


    Yup. You'd thunk they'd a be use'n some linux.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:29:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:HbRcj.25841$k27.15092@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>* PEDRO LITTLE fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>>
    >>> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >>> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding
    >>> Macs to
    >>> make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks
    >>> more
    >>> heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to compromise
    >>> an entire group of computers.

    >>
    >> "Might?"
    >>
    >> Sounds like he ain't too sure. Oh yeah:
    >>
    >> "He said the Army should deal with a broader range of vendors to
    >> increase competition and harden I.T. defenses. But thus far, the Army
    >> has allowed only a trickle of Macs to enter military facilities. The
    >> Army buys only about 1,000 Macs during its twice-a-year buying
    >> seasons."
    >>
    >> . . .
    >>
    >> "Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators said Apple had to
    >> patch security flaws five times as much as Microsoft. "I love my
    >> Macs, but in terms of security, they're behind the curve, compared to
    >> Windows," Miller told Forbes."
    >>
    >> Miller added that the Army needs a better security strategy than just
    >> adding Macs to the mix.
    >>
    >>

    > Yup. You'd thunk they'd a be use'n some linux.


    What makes you think they don't?

    --
    Rick

  10. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On 2007-12-27, Rick claimed:
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:
    >
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    > bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>
    >> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >> to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    >> networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    >> to compromise an entire group of computers.

    >
    > Why do we care about these Macs?


    Sounds like the colonel might be trying an old MS trick: security
    through obscurity. Little Pedro seems to be impressed with such a wise
    plan, too.

    --
    A censor is someone who knows more than he thinks YOU should.

  11. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    news:sqad45-ju6.ln1@clark.harry.net...
    > On 2007-12-27, Rick claimed:
    >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    >> bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>>
    >>> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >>> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >>> to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    >>> networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    >>> to compromise an entire group of computers.

    >>
    >> Why do we care about these Macs?

    >
    > Sounds like the colonel might be trying an old MS trick: security
    > through obscurity. Little Pedro seems to be impressed with such a wise
    > plan, too.


    No. That's not what it sounds like. Perhaps that's what it would sound like
    to an idiot who's too stupid to read. But anyone with more than a dozen
    brain cells it would not think that at all.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  12. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security


    "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    news:sqad45-ju6.ln1@clark.harry.net...
    > On 2007-12-27, Rick claimed:
    >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:40:40 -0500, PEDRO LITTLE wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/

    >> bs_nf/57382;_ylt=AlWG7sB8LEurJMA3y0_W4w8jtBAF
    >>>
    >>> Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    >>> enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs
    >>> to make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making
    >>> networks more heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers
    >>> to compromise an entire group of computers.

    >>
    >> Why do we care about these Macs?

    >
    > Sounds like the colonel might be trying an old MS trick: security
    > through obscurity.


    Hint for you moron... "Security through obscurity" would be if the Colonel
    added computers to the network but didn't release what sort of systems they
    were. Since they are clearly saying they are Macs it's hardly security
    through obscurity.

    Have your big sister explain to you that what the Colonel is doing is
    increasing the reliability of the network by eliminating his vulnerability
    from a single type of attack. By having a heterogenious network (this means
    more than one kind of computer on it) there is no one single
    virus/trojan/worm that can infect every computer on the network.


    > Little Pedro seems to be impressed with such a wise
    > plan, too.


    At least I can read and understand what was written. No wonder you're a
    midget when it comes to reasoning ability.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    * PEDRO LITTLE fired off this tart reply:

    > Yup. You'd thunk they'd a be use'n some linux.


    Hint: you picked only one article to post.

    P.S. Don't bother finding any more. I don't give a rat's ass what the
    Army does.

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    In article <4773f553$0$26085$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
    "PEDRO LITTLE" wrote:
    > "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    > > Sounds like the colonel might be trying an old MS trick: security
    > > through obscurity.

    >
    > Hint for you moron... "Security through obscurity" would be if the Colonel
    > added computers to the network but didn't release what sort of systems they
    > were. Since they are clearly saying they are Macs it's hardly security
    > through obscurity.


    A good general rule is that when someone on usenet outside of sci.crypt
    brings up "security through obscurity", they don't actually understand
    what that means.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  15. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Dec 27, 8:40*am, "PEDRO LITTLE" wrote:
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071224/...WG7sB8LEurJMA3...
    >
    > Lt. Col. C.J. Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of
    > enterprise information systems, told Forbes that the Army is adding Macs to
    > make its networks harder to hack. Wallington said that making networks more
    > heterogeneous might make it more difficult for attackers to compromise an
    > entire group of computers.
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


    Diversify is the way to go if you want security, nothing is completely
    bulletproof, especially for high-value target like the Army's
    networks. So blending Mac, Windows, Linux and possible some other OSs
    together would be the right way to go.

  16. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:01:53 -0800,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <4773f553$0$26085$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
    > "PEDRO LITTLE" wrote:
    >> "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    >> > Sounds like the colonel might be trying an old MS trick: security
    >> > through obscurity.

    >>
    >> Hint for you moron... "Security through obscurity" would be if the Colonel
    >> added computers to the network but didn't release what sort of systems they
    >> were. Since they are clearly saying they are Macs it's hardly security
    >> through obscurity.

    >
    > A good general rule is that when someone on usenet outside of sci.crypt
    > brings up "security through obscurity", they don't actually understand
    > what that means.
    >


    hehe, I though much the same when I saw the nymshifter's post.

    much like the fooraw some folks yabbered on about wrt port-knocking
    being "security by obscurity"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHdC6Fd90bcYOAWPYRAgWCAJ9+4x+3YoJrEh9ddJQvP8 YWYZv0pwCfXHl7
    4LqiZ4zZ/2Odbrl79Gb3kmY=
    =5q3M
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you
    --Benjamin Franklin

  17. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    In article <5dnd45-csk.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > A good general rule is that when someone on usenet outside of sci.crypt
    > > brings up "security through obscurity", they don't actually understand
    > > what that means.
    > >

    >
    > hehe, I though much the same when I saw the nymshifter's post.
    >
    > much like the fooraw some folks yabbered on about wrt port-knocking
    > being "security by obscurity"


    The general usenet denizen somehow seems to have gotten the idea that
    security by obscurity is bad--if you have an obscurity component to your
    security system, you are somehow less secure than if the same system did
    not include obscurity.

    The meaning of the phrase "security by obscurity is no security at all"
    is that if you use a weak algorithm, poor keys, bad protocols, etc.,
    trying to keep them secret won't save you. And if you use a strong
    cipher, good keys and protocols, don't botch the implementation, etc.,
    than obscurity probably won't make it any harder, in the O() sense, for
    the bad guy. If an n-bit key takes O(2^(n/2)) steps to break without
    obscurity, it will still take about the same effort with obscurity--the
    obscurity basically adds a constant time to the breaking effort.

    But that constant time can make all the difference. If the bad guy has
    to intercept traffic for a week to reverse engineer the protocol, that's
    an extra week you've got to notice that someone has tapped into your
    channel. It's an extra week that the enemy doesn't know your upcoming
    troop movements, possibly saving many lives of your men, etc.

    You should design your system so that it survives when the bad guy gets
    through the obscurity, but that doesn't mean you should make it any
    easier for the bad guy by letting him get started a week or two earlier
    on the meat of your system!

    Even if you've got a great safe, you don't invite the burglar into your
    home.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:00:21 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    (snip)
    > hehe, I though much the same when I saw the nymshifter's post.
    >

    So, who do you think he is?

    --
    Rick

  19. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:00:18 +0000, Rick wrote:


    > Why do we care about these Macs?


    I'm all for it -- if the Army is willing try brand x then they're more
    likely to try brand y. Meaning they're seeing the OS as a commodity.


    -Thufir

  20. Re: Army Adds Macs (and ignores Linux) To Improve Security

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:43:15 -0000,
    Rick wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:00:21 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > (snip)
    >> hehe, I though much the same when I saw the nymshifter's post.
    >>

    > So, who do you think he is?
    >


    who cares? It's a nymshifting troll, it doesn't matter.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHdVnOd90bcYOAWPYRAotUAJ0aAmtNZDGyUOevhYuIae idXUiCKgCfcskB
    g1kpyjOc9ZXyg7MF/PAQQMs=
    =+brw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

+ Reply to Thread