4 ms·
Yea, in my opinion thats also the actual problem here. World leaders using run of the mill iphones poses a real security risk. They should be using some hardene
by tacker2000 4y ago
Yea, in my opinion thats also the actual problem here. World leaders using run of the mill iphones poses a real security risk. They should be using some hardened ultra secure device or other communication methods.
- Melatonic 4y agoKind of too bad we lost Blackberry - they seemed to be focusing on this sort of thing. Maybe this is someone a large country could develop internally themselves? Create their own fork of Android, private app store, etc etc?
- stavros 4y agoThat kind of goes to the wrong end of the solution for me: Run-of-the-mill phones should be hardened, ultra-secure devices. We all have a right to privacy and security.
- tacker2000 4y agoYes sure, but the requirements for normal consumers are much lower than for any high profile individual. It all comes down to cost vs. need. Think of the security of the average home users wifi network vs. the networks of a small company. The latter will have to be more hardened and also spend the money for that.
- stavros 4y agoI think (/would hope) the hardening there would be more in procedures and app installation. The base/OS layer should be secure from intrusion for heads of state or for everyday people, help people make good privacy decisions (with granular permissions), etc.
- prakhar897 4y agoFunctionality and Security are inversely proportional to each other. If you introduce a "Play Store" in a phone, the security risk automatically increases billion times. In an ideal world, There would be some special devices which have very limited set of functionalities inbuilt like calls, message etc which is used by world leaders to communicate.
- makeitdouble 4y agoWouldn’t that leader still end up with a personal phone that isn’t that secured ? Or at the other end of spectrum have a work device that is so special that it’s extremely identifiable and targetable ? What we have now for work devices with manageable profiles seems to me to be a good balance that should possible to harden enough for extreme cases as well.
- true_religion 4y agoNah not really. Having a top-end iPhone or Samsung be a hardened device by default would mean world leaders would be protected on their personal devices. Also, most anyone who talks to a world leader would get that same protection. On the other hand "run of the mill" phones that you can hand to a teenager (or use as a backup phone) don't need ultra-security and the cost that comes with it. Really low end devices would probably be secure by simple virtue of not having enough features to enable hacking.
- daanlo 4y agoIsn‘t that just a good old Nokia? :)
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoThose aren't automatically more secure. Their modems and baseband processors running closed sourced firmware are the main entry points. Ideally, you'd want to build your own phone where you control the supply chain form hardware to software running on it. I do believe the US president has a custom NSA hardened phone.
- daanlo 4y agoThanks for the explanation :)
- e2le 4y agoWhen was the last time it had it's software updated? 2006?
- baisq 4y agoWe should all drive bulletproof cars.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoWe do all drive cars that meet a mountain of hard standards. Our phones are still pre-seatbelts, pre-crush zones, pre-lead-free gas, pre-standardized controls and signal lights, etc. Our phones only meet electrical and rf safety standards. When one phone model one time had a bad battery, it was a big deal. But if someone steals your retirement, oh well.
- msh 4y agoBut unless you are a major tech power getting a trusted hardened device that is more secure than a locked down iphone is hard.
- uuyi 4y agoEven worse, the devices aren’t necessarily as secure as an iPhone!
- WelcomeShorty 4y agoThing is, these "specially hardened" devices are... a pain at best. Nearly all VIP's insist on at least have their private phone as well, if not simply refusing to carry / use the issued devices.