[belfastdispatcher]

Looks like claims were greatly exaggerated, no surprise :

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...21031?irpc=932

[qbnkelt]

Looks like claims were greatly exaggerated, no surprise :

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...21031?irpc=932

There is absolutely nothing in that article that wasn't known before. Note Bla1ze's post at the beginning of this thread.




Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

[qbnkelt]

They dismissed the PlayBook for one short lived rooting incident yet they will consider ios and android that could be rooted from the very beginning.

Go back to the FedBizOps article. Their reasons are there.

While you focus on something the size of a leaf there is a whole forest you won't even see.



Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

[richardat]

I think it's growing business for them, but I also imagine that if they were to put the actual numbers out there as a portion of their overall sales, people might be a little shocked that it's not as big as thought.



Which would hold true if they sold 200,000 to 400,000 devices or 10 million to twenty million.

Would they? I doubt most investors or average people are much at all. When the sales figures and profits are that high, they're pretty happy. Of course, anyone who really cares (like the analysts) can do a little research and reach their own conclusions (which they have, and they seemed to think enterprise sales are doing well). If for argument's sake we assume the numbers are very low (hard to believe with the ipad), that investors would be shocked and therefore turn away from Apple, or that consumers would balk?

[gjohnsto]

So... what's the over under on bb10 being FIPS certified?

[westcoastit]

So... what's the over under on bb10 being FIPS certified?

In what time frame?

[aragone79]

The last QNX based OS, the PB platform, had a vulnerability which resulted in Dingleberry. It was FIPS certified but that did not result in its adoption in government agency and marketshare wise it proved to be an absolute failure. THAT, it proved absolutely. A later update merely fixed a hole in that vulnerability, but the OS DID have a vulnerability.
THIS discussion centers on BB10, which is unreleased, untested, FIPS ,uncertified and unproven..




Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

What about iPhone itself that you already use? Mine has give me a security breach through to my iTunes Account. Almost lost USD 200, dude!! And it's real. I can show you all emails between me and apple CS regarding how someone can steal my iTunes account and credit around USD 200 by buying iTunes gift certificate and sent those to him/her emails and iTunes account.

Damn! My BB World account, until now, is never breached (I already own it since 2008, same with iTunes account).

[westcoastit]

What about iPhone itself that you already use? Mine has give me a security breach through to my iTunes Account. Almost lost USD 200, dude!! And it's real. I can show you all emails between me and apple CS regarding how someone can steal my iTunes account and credit around USD 200 by buying iTunes gift certificate and sent those to him/her emails and iTunes account.

Damn! My BB World account, until now, is never breached (I already own it since 2008, same with iTunes account).

How did they get your password? Unless they hacked Apple and stole a list of credit cards or user credentials that's no different than any other stolen password, and if they did hack Apple then there would be a huge amount of press about it. There was no end of stories about the Gawker guy who had this devices wiped and that was just some clever social engineering, not an actual hack or data theft.

[qbnkelt]

What about iPhone itself that you already use? Mine has give me a security breach through to my iTunes Account. Almost lost USD 200, dude!! And it's real. I can show you all emails between me and apple CS regarding how someone can steal my iTunes account and credit around USD 200 by buying iTunes gift certificate and sent those to him/her emails and iTunes account.

Damn! My BB World account, until now, is never breached (I already own it since 2008, same with iTunes account).

Ummmmm.....I'm not a dude.....



As to your iTunes account....that is horrible. Truly.

However, within the context if this discussion, it is highly unlikely that users will be able to access iTunes unfettered.

As to my personal iPhone and my iPod before that and my iPad, I've had no such incident.

Most security breaches come through apps. Users have to be extremely careful about what they download. For example, I don't buy anything from AppWorld by Jared Company because there have been bad BB apps in ApWorld and their name has been associated. So I'm careful.

So....no, I haven't had any incidents with iOS.

I DID have some spear phishing situations with my Android. Consequently, I no longer get live wallpapers since that was the only unusual thing I got for my Android devices.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[axeman1000]

Show me where I have endorsed the use of iOS or Android over BB within and behind my agency's firewalls.

Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

Well the fact you are stating a fact that makes Blackberry 10 look negative on a Blackberry post and you are doing it from a iphone 4S kinds of make you look like your waving a flag for someone! You may not be saying it outright but your throwing out the what if like they could still fail. Kinds of like the "too little too late", "going under", "going bankrupt" comments, which I havent seen of late for most people who have not been fro RIM from day one.

But just use the logic of the fact that the most secure os for moblie will defintely clear as it would be foolish to rewrite and go backwards!!!! Would you like to make the assumption that would happen? It is almost as foolish as a car company releasing something that caused a issue and then doing it again on another model created years later! Just don't happen!

[MADBRADNYC]

Show me where I have endorsed the use of iOS or Android over BB within and behind my agency's firewalls.

Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

Well the fact you are stating a fact that makes Blackberry 10 look negative on a Blackberry post and you are doing it from a iphone 4S kinds of make you look like your waving a flag for someone! You may not be saying it outright but your throwing out the what if like they could still fail. Kinds of like the "too little too late", "going under", "going bankrupt" comments, which I havent seen of late for most people who have not been fro RIM from day one.

But just use the logic of the fact that the most secure os for moblie will defintely clear as it would be foolish to rewrite and go backwards!!!! Would you like to make the assumption that would happen? It is almost as foolish as a car company releasing something that caused a issue and then doing it again on another model created years later! Just don't happen!

Why do some of us BlackBerry owners go over the top?
If someone is stating facts that you don't agree with; doesn't mean they aren't facts, and people shouldn't be upset that facts are stated.
If BB10 isn't certified currently, it just isn't certified currently. Period.
That does not mean that it will NOT EVER be certified!

I also do not understand what device someone is posting from has to do with anything. I have only known BlackBerry for many years after the old Symbian and Windows phones. In fact, I don�t know anything about current devices on alternate platforms at this point in my life. That means I can�t really have an objective view of things. The fact that someone uses alternate platforms is just showing that they are much more well rounded than I am. I don�t take seeing someone owning multiple devices as a reason not to post facts in a forum. It has absolutely no bearing on anything except to say� �Hey, I�ve actually tried this and I can say that this is better, and this is worse�. I don�t think their posts should be discounted just for having a device on a different platform! Very shallow thinking...

I think your car analogy is reaching quite a bit and doesn't apply at all.
It does not have to be the same exact issue/vulnerability every time.
It does not have to be a DingleBerry type of vulnerability.
It could be something totally different in scope, but still be a vulnerability none the less.
Which is quite possible since BB10 is a totally new platform built from the ground up.
Plenty of potential for a back door there. That is why it�s taking so long to release.
RIM wants to do it right straight out of the gate.


If you know anything about the car industry, malfunctioning new units are constantly being recalled from the same companies over and over again for different issues every year.
Just because issues with the brakes on a certain model for a certain year have been rectified, still does not stop future models from being recalled for a variety of other issues regarding steering, broken bearings, overheating, faulty airbags, ease of fire ignition, etc...

Yes, I personally believe BB10 will be certified. But the fact is that it is not certified now as it stands.
Why is that such a blow to some people? It is what it is...

I have faith that BB10 will be a success, in both the private & public sectors.
But, I agree with Thor that if it ain�t ready yet, it just ain�t ready yet.
How can you disagree?

[qbnkelt]

Show me where I have endorsed the use of iOS or Android over BB within and behind my agency's firewalls.

Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

Well the fact you are stating a fact that makes Blackberry 10 look negative on a Blackberry post and you are doing it from a iphone 4S kinds of make you look like your waving a flag for someone! You may not be saying it outright but your throwing out the what if like they could still fail. Kinds of like the "too little too late", "going under", "going bankrupt" comments, which I havent seen of late for most people who have not been fro RIM from day one.

But just use the logic of the fact that the most secure os for moblie will defintely clear as it would be foolish to rewrite and go backwards!!!! Would you like to make the assumption that would happen? It is almost as foolish as a car company releasing something that caused a issue and then doing it again on another model created years later! Just don't happen!

You know.....not even going to bother with this drivel....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Blacklatino]

You know.....not even going to bother with this drivel....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fits the profile in my signature.

[BB10BelieveIt]

Here is why the stock spiked 10% higher today.

' The DISA request for proposals said the software would manage at least 162,500 devices to start...Ultimately, the Pentagon wants the software to support a total of 8 million devices, according to the document.'

That would be monthly service fees for 8 million devices for whoever is the lucky company to win that MDM contract is. Keep in mind that BES is far and away the gold standard for secure and customizable MDM management and that RIM built BES 10 specifically to be robust enough for their US government clients. Let's put 2 and 2 together folks. The DoD ain't going with an inferior MDM solution like good.

[mikeo007]

You know.....not even going to bother with this drivel....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just add him to the list. Most of us already have.

[RubberChicken76]

Looks like claims were greatly exaggerated, no surprise :

Pentagon sees further use of BlackBerry as door opens to others

And yet eWeek has another spin article

BlackBerry 10 Smartphones Head to Carrier Trials as RIM Loses Pentagon

Love the headline. BlackBerry 10 Smartphones Head to Carrier Trials as RIM Loses Pentagon

[badiyee85]

Hi guys,

As far as i can recall, if memory serves me right, QNX Neutrino in its own form (the POSIX microkernel) has been awarded FIPS-1 and -2.

And when the PlayBook OS is built right off that OS, shouldn't it itself by itself qualify for FIPS2 (since the microkernel / os behind it already did?)

Or, unless one were to argue that PBOS and BB10 is a forked development, instead of an incremental upgraded OS like how you would see like win95->win98->winxp->vista->win7?

(in MS's case, i think there are forked variations such as win NT, win RT, win me, and win server?)

so, is QNX deemed to be a failure now that it hasn't got a FIPS before its even in the market yet?

[aragone79]

How did they get your password? Unless they hacked Apple and stole a list of credit cards or user credentials that's no different than any other stolen password, and if they did hack Apple then there would be a huge amount of press about it. There was no end of stories about the Gawker guy who had this devices wiped and that was just some clever social engineering, not an actual hack or data theft.

I don't know, I cannot access my account. The Hacker change the password, and secret question.

[Tre Lawrence]

Hi guys,

As far as i can recall, if memory serves me right, QNX Neutrino in its own form (the POSIX microkernel) has been awarded FIPS-1 and -2.

And when the PlayBook OS is built right off that OS, shouldn't it itself by itself qualify for FIPS2 (since the microkernel / os behind it already did?)

Or, unless one were to argue that PBOS and BB10 is a forked development, instead of an incremental upgraded OS like how you would see like win95->win98->winxp->vista->win7?

(in MS's case, i think there are forked variations such as win NT, win RT, win me, and win server?)

so, is QNX deemed to be a failure now that it hasn't got a FIPS before its even in the market yet?

I *think* the device has to garner FIPS on its own, but others who know more will weigh in I'm sure. I mean, some Android devices have it, but I think those are hardened Sammy ones.

I don't think anyone is deeming it a favor; I think QB was playing devil's advocate in bringing up an important point: it isn't certified yet, so it isn't an attribute that RIM can use with potential government clients. So, if an agency is concerned about RIM's future and is looking to get newer BB10 devices, it is a tough sell from a FIPS standpoint. BB10 does not yet have that advantage.

[recompile]

Yes, I personally believe BB10 will be certified. But the fact is that it is not certified now as it stands.
Why is that such a blow to some people? It is what it is...

While it's correct in the strictest technical sense, it's deceptive -- and the presentation makes it appear intentionally deceptive.

QNX has been around for ages and has a long history of achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. RIM's old OS has a long history of consistantly achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. Every QNX based OS RIM has released after acquisition has achieved FIPS-140-2 certification.

Exactly one version had a vulnerability that allowed their device to be 'rooted' via a complicated process. No subsequent version has been rooted successfully. (Every version of competing operating systems has had a vulnerability that allowed for rooting or similar exploit. Usually on or before the first day.)

BB10 is essentially the next version of RIM's already proven tablet OS. It's not new, it's an update. It's an update to a product that has a long history of consistently achieving FIPS-140-2 certification.

By induction, we can assume that BB10 with be both secure and achieve FIPS-140-2 certification. To say that BB10 is an unknown, untested, and unproven is to ignore the entire history of the product. (See, while technically true, it's shamefully deceptive!)

That's why it's "such a blow to some people".

[aragone79]

While it's correct in the strictest technical sense, it's deceptive -- and the presentation makes it appear intentionally deceptive.

QNX has been around for ages and has a long history of achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. RIM's old OS has a long history of consistantly achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. Every QNX based OS RIM has released after acquisition has achieved FIPS-140-2 certification.

Exactly one version had a vulnerability that allowed their device to be 'rooted' via a complicated process. No subsequent version has been rooted successfully. (Every version of competing operating systems has had a vulnerability that allowed for rooting or similar exploit. Usually on or before the first day.)

BB10 is essentially the next version of RIM's already proven tablet OS. It's not new, it's an update. It's an update to a product that has a long history of consistently achieving FIPS-140-2 certification.

By induction, we can assume that BB10 with be both secure and achieve FIPS-140-2 certification. To say that BB10 is an unknown, untested, and unproven is to ignore the entire history of the product. (See, while technically true, it's shamefully deceptive!)

That's why it's "such a blow to some people".

totally agree with you

[MADBRADNYC]

While it's correct in the strictest technical sense, it's deceptive -- and the presentation makes it appear intentionally deceptive.

QNX has been around for ages and has a long history of achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. RIM's old OS has a long history of consistantly achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. Every QNX based OS RIM has released after acquisition has achieved FIPS-140-2 certification.

Exactly one version had a vulnerability that allowed their device to be 'rooted' via a complicated process. No subsequent version has been rooted successfully. (Every version of competing operating systems has had a vulnerability that allowed for rooting or similar exploit. Usually on or before the first day.)

BB10 is essentially the next version of RIM's already proven tablet OS. It's not new, it's an update. It's an update to a product that has a long history of consistently achieving FIPS-140-2 certification.

By induction, we can assume that BB10 with be both secure and achieve FIPS-140-2 certification. To say that BB10 is an unknown, untested, and unproven is to ignore the entire history of the product. (See, while technically true, it's shamefully deceptive!)

That's why it's "such a blow to some people".

You're entitled to your opinion. I respect that.
Be advised that your whole post appears to be about statements I never made at all.

Now, since you quoted me... I will just say this.
As far as I know, BB10 has just been put in the hands of carriers for internal testing within the past week or so.
I have not heard any announcement that BB10 has been submitted for testing by any government agency to receive FIPS-140-2 certification as of yet.
So to me it is black & white. It is either certified or it isn't certified at this specific moment in time.
I'm sure it will be announced here first on CB when BB10 meets those requirements.
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp.../140sp1578.pdf
I am saying that just because it isn't certified now, does not mean that it won't be certified when submitted for testing. That's it.
I don't think stating that BB10 has not been tested, or proven worthy of certification at this time is incorrect or deceptive at all. It hasn't and isn't.
It is a fact. It has not been tested for that classification yet. That, you even say is "technically" true. How can that be argued?

What I am really seeing is that you want some people here to conform to your belief that RIM has always done things correct and should have a blind belief that BB10 will skate through another round of testing. Not gonna happen. Especially when some have reported here that having that trust in the past has hurt their reputation. You need to let others feel the way they do, and not force your opinions on them. If a member chooses not to believe in any future certification until it has been tested, proven, and deserves that grade level of security, they should be allowed to do so. I can.t believe that the argument I keep reading here over and over is that "you gotta believe". Well, just because I believe does not mean everyone else on these boards have to believe.

You basically want members to believe that someone can be half pregnant already because they have a long history of bearing children.
Everyone does not think that way. Either you are, or you are not.
You can't be "halfway there" because of past deeds.
If you are really that unsure.... Go to get tested! Get certified! Then there will be no further discussion, correct?

I'm sure Thor is working hard to make sure that BB10 will be absolutely secure and a wonder to have.

[qbnkelt]

While it's correct in the strictest technical sense, it's deceptive -- and the presentation makes it appear intentionally deceptive.

So you are saying that I'm being intentionally deceitful in stating that BB10 has not achieved FIPS certification. OK. You go with that. Give me an example of one untested OS that entered government firewalls without achieving FIPS certification.

QNX has been around for ages and has a long history of achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. RIM's old OS has a long history of consistantly achieving FIPS-140-2 certification. Every QNX based OS RIM has released after acquisition has achieved FIPS-140-2 certification.

RIM has a long history of FIPS certification with BBOS. It has gained the trust of government agencies everywhere. The President uses it. If we are to follow your logic, then BB7 would have gone into the government fleet without FIPS certification. Yet they had to achieve it. Why?

http://press.rim.com/newsroom/press/...ease-5361.html

Ditto with BB 6
http://crackberry.com/blackberry-6-e...nment-agencies

Not keen on spending time looking for the others, I believe I've proved my point.

Exactly one version had a vulnerability that allowed their device to be 'rooted' via a complicated process. No subsequent version has been rooted successfully. (Every version of competing operating systems has had a vulnerability that allowed for rooting or similar exploit. Usually on or before the first day.)

And this is the reason I'm completely gobsmacked about iOS going behind ICE firewalls. Don't believe me? Check out my statements in the ICE thread. I'm not keen on repeating myself.

BB10 is essentially the next version of RIM's already proven tablet OS. It's not new, it's an update. It's an update to a product that has a long history of consistently achieving FIPS-140-2 certification.

FIPS certification is not granted on "essentially" anything. It is given on its own merit. If that were the case, iOS would be behind firewalls everywhere in the government space. NASA has been usingn iOS for years. GSA has already transitioned. There are iPads everywhere. These are most likey compartmentalised, sandboxed instances. If your logic were true, then iOS would not be having the fight of its life achieving FIPS. And for the record, I AM NOT A PROPONENT of iOS behind firewalls. I am stating facts as they are, whether you believe that I am being deliberately deceitful or not is personally irrelevant. That said, I do want the record straight. Don't believe me? Go through my posts on the matter.

By induction, we can assume that BB10 with be both secure and achieve FIPS-140-2 certification. To say that BB10 is an unknown, untested, and unproven is to ignore the entire history of the product. (See, while technically true, it's shamefully deceptive!)

BB10 is an unknown, it is untested, it is uncertified, and it is unproven. Tell me which agency has tested BB10. Tell me when BB10 was granted FIPS certification. Tell me what history BB10 has gained. Prove me these things about BB10 and I will say you have proven me to be shamefully deceitful. And by the way, that is a heinous accusation to throw at me. You don't know my history of support for RIM in my agency, and you don't know the credibility that I have lost supporting the Playbook. And you additionally don't know about having twice stopped moves towards investigation of bringing other OSs in. Not because of RIM as a company, I could care less about RIM as a company in relation to others' use of BB as opposed to MY choice and use of BBs. I care about the integrity of my systems, the ones I am charged with protecting. So before you talk about shamefully deceiving anyone, get your facts straight.

That's why it's "such a blow to some people".

It is such a blow to some people because they are reacting on an emotional level to an exposure to facts. For all the discussion of the cult of Apple, this reaction smacks just as much as cultist adherence and devotion to a company at such a high level that being given objective truths is considered an affront.

For the record, I manage IT systems, firewalls, systems security and am charged with complying with FIPS certification in the systems that come into my workspace. I cannot bring one single solitary system behind my firewalls that is not FIPS certified in its own merit.

Stand away from the emotional reaction and think logically. Tell me whether the federal government would take the risk of putting software and systems behind its firewalls because a company has a history of producing products that have been previously certified. And if you feel that it is logical for the federal government to expose itself to such a risk for the sake of some ephemeral belief in a company, then it is obvious that you lack all understanding of how FIPS certification works, of systems deployments behind firewalls, and of the protection of the integrity of what is in fact behind those firewalls. And if security were to be risked for the sake of RIM having done things right in the past, the government might just as well hand the entire IT infrastructure, data, sensitive information over to the Washington Post so that they can publish it all.

Go ahead and believe what you like. Go ahead and talk about me bringing up these issues as an attempt to "shamefully deceive." Facts are what they are regardless of who wishes to ignore therm.

[belfastdispatcher]

Considering all government tech really just comes out of our own pockets, I don't think they should have BB10 or iPhones, they should be using cheap an capable 9320.

I don't think any government job requires retina display or video chat on a mobile phones.

They're more likely issued laptops and their cars are more likely fitted with sat navs.

[qbnkelt]

Considering all government tech really just comes out of our own pockets, I don't think they should have BB10 or iPhones, they should be using cheap an capable 9320.

I don't think any government job requires retina display or video chat on a mobile phones.

They're more likely issued laptops and their cars are more likely fitted with sat navs.

So it is your stated opinion that the secure community, arguably RIM's staunchest supporter, not be given BB10 devices?
I will let that statement stand as your solution.



Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk