Obama Inauguration Protected by Windows XP

Status
Not open for further replies.

igot1forya

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2008
590
0
18,980
0
I doubt the OS is where the DOD wanted to spend the time/money to secure. Chances are they went with a better firewall IDS/IPS then spin the bottle on securing an operating system. No OS is 100% secure, it's best to prevent intrusion before the attacker can even get to your workstation's flaws.
 

descendency

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
582
0
18,990
1
More likely that Vista's "security improvements" are more idiot proofing and less actual security (well, idiots screw their computers up regularly).
 

ckthecerealkiller

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2008
219
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]descendency[/nom]More likely that Vista's "security improvements" are more idiot proofing and less actual security (well, idiots screw their computers up regularly).[/citation]
You have no idea how correct you are....

Ditto on Igot1, the real security measures are network not workstation based.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Open source OSes are definitely safer but I wouldn't speculate about the FBI still using XP. It takes a long time for the security agencies to evaluate a software platform and as a large government organization they will have access to Vista's source code as per Microsoft's policy. They probably use multiple OSes as they have to be able to perform forensics on any system. The NSA even wrote a mandatory access control add-on for Linux that is part of most distros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux).
 
G

Guest

Guest
All it takes is a competent IT staff and you can secure your OS. MAC OS X Leapord? Is that a joke? Lets not forget that you need to actually accomplish something, other than create youtube videos all day with your cute imovie hd, with your os. Windows is by far the most versatile and useful OS out there. There are a myriad of applications and uses for it, which is obviously why it is know upwards and backwards, which makes it a little more enticing to exploit, while at the same time making available an incredible number of different methods to secure it. Complaints about windows and are generally from the incompetent user and in the corporate world its because of ignorant and uneducated sys admins. Windows does not take on the aim to run your computer for you and make choices for you, which is why it is so successful. Mac OS is out of this world vulnerable, but where is the enticement to exploit it? there is very little! its user base is so limited and generally that of a college student/professor/grandmother/thinks they are cool because they own one, user. While they tend to make the most noise, they have yet to make a dent on the "pc" market. gg
 

bachok83

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2006
77
0
18,630
0
you'll never know.. looks can be deceiving. This is FBI for crying out loud... They may be using some XP theme on their Red Hat Linux.

who knows.. :)
 

ahmshaegar

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
59
0
18,630
0
Are they using Windows XP everywhere? Or are these on the computers that the agents use? (for keeping track of intel and so on.) If these are the computers being used by agents, then it kind of makes sense they're using Windows XP. It's the most familiar thing to them. With the kind of jobs they're doing, the last thing they want to have to deal with is learning a different interface. They just want to get work done.
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
It looks like the FBI is reluctant to move to Windows Vista for laptops.
This is completely understandable. Their maybe several programs produced in house that simply may/would not function on vista.

I am surprised they didn't use some form of UNIX or Linux.

 

resonance451

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2008
426
0
18,780
0
As understandable as a lot of this is, the article sounds suspiciously like a Vista vs. XP propaganda ploy. I'm going to be trusting and assume it's not.
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,151
1
19,280
0
security is least dependent on the OS. they're using it because they have more experience with it. also, it's quite difficult, risky and expensive for a new OS, more time is needed.
 

ThePatriot

Distinguished
May 12, 2006
147
0
18,680
0
There is no such thing as a secure laptop under windows.
MS is in bed with the NSA; back doors al over.
CPU's radiate, wireless access is full of holes.
Security is always a compromise between functionality, availability and confidentiality. You can ask any Cisco security auditor.... they know.
 

Cuddles

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2008
266
0
18,790
1
FBI, Army, Navy, etc. all have a budget. If you have a really big question on how good their security is why don't you go try and hack it. Sure, you may actually get in but then you'll be running for a good portion of your life. They could be running OS 2 and it wouldn't matter because if you actually managed to hack the outcome would still be the same.
Mind you that we are still in a time of war and if somebody did try to hack an FBI computer during the Presidential Inauguration the outcome would be very, very bad. I would even say they might go so far as labeling you as a threat to the United States and just putting you in a cell till they feel like letting you out.
So XP, Vista, Linux, whatever OS it is... It would take a real dumb ass to try and hack an FBI computer and it would be an even bigger dumb ass to do it during a Presidential Inauguration. Sure, you could do it but the outcome wouldn't be worth it.
 

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
2,841
0
20,810
19
security has nothing to do with it, it's called money and contracts. if the government has a contract with a certain company they are forced to use that company's software, no matter how safe or unsafe it is. it's like they have a pair of hand-cuffs on.
 
The FBI (and most agencies/coorporations) don't have a majority of computers powerful enough to run vista. You need to understand, the majority of PC's still have less than 1GB RAM on them. If OS's demand 2+ GB of RAM to run well, they will not succeede.
 

crom

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2007
378
0
18,780
0
No Windows OS is rated for top security, neither is Apple. The Vista vs XP issue is moot here because both are a bad choice for a truly secure OS.
 

bfstev

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
174
0
18,680
0
The government uses specialized versions of xp that they taylor to fit their needs. It is most definently more secure than regular xp.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Bomb vehicle?
I thought those guys needed to ensure peace, not war!

If it takes a bomb to stop the bomber... where's the world getting to?
 

hardwarekid9756

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2008
142
0
18,680
0
Where's the source? Just a picture?

I would like to see a Gov't tech telling you they use XP/Vista. That computer has CNN.com open... You ever think it's just a dummy PC with a dummy OS on it to trick people? I mean seriously...You're trusting a picture? If so, I've got some fantastic snake oil I can sell you...
 
G

Guest

Guest
@ ProDigit

It's a Bomb Vessel. A Vessel is another word for a container. The container is an enclosed space with instruments that can operate on the package in question to determine if it's dangerous. If the package detonates, the explosion is contained.
 

sharksman

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2008
14
0
18,510
0
If your network is crappy it doesn't matter what Os you are running and how "hardened" it is. Oh and I have never seen a truly secure MAc OS or flavor of LINUX for that matter. The most secure OS I have seen is a stripped down UNIX .. but that was simply a server.
Gov agencies use ton of apps and devices that run on windows, and porting to Linux would be hard and far more expensive than going the Windows route. I mean, it's not like they can go to the open source community and ask for help :)
 

Tindytim

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
1,179
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]ahmshaegar[/nom]Are they using Windows XP everywhere? Or are these on the computers that the agents use? (for keeping track of intel and so on.) If these are the computers being used by agents, then it kind of makes sense they're using Windows XP. It's the most familiar thing to them. With the kind of jobs they're doing, the last thing they want to have to deal with is learning a different interface. They just want to get work done.[/citation]
No, it doesn't. They're agents, they probably had to learn quite a bit just to get where they are now, it's not like using a different OS is that difficult, especially if you're only using taylor made programs for that Job. They can be trained, these people aren't retarded.
 

squatchman

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2008
211
0
18,680
0



Let's stick to claims that we can actually prove.

After the last eight years I wouldn't trust anything coming out of the Department of Homeland Security to be able to tie its own shoes, let alone operate any device with more than an On/Off Button.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS