Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

One off bans makes more sense, a whole unit set up to pre-approve millions of potential apps is crazy-town.

Then they use Google Chrome and hit a phishing-hole site and get their phone owned. But don't worry, they weren't allowed to install Netflix!

The problem here is open-source intelligence because TikTok is very popular among young members who spend all their free time in their bunk on their phone. Limiting the apps might help with that, but I'm highly skeptical. There's already plenty of restrictions on social media use for armed-forces members. I believe that path is the way to go - create restrictions on posting personal information.

Having some paper pusher unit pre-approving millions of potential apps sounds like a giant waste of time. It makes a lot more sense to react to bad stuff (like one-off reactions for a massively popular video sharing app with sketchy Chinese ownership) than pre-emptively ban everything, simply because it won't do much for security beyond what Apple and Google are already doing in the app store.

So because it adds a layer of security rather than 100% watertight perfection, it is bad?

Explain to me how it's useful for security? Because I can guarantee you it will be a giant time-and-money waster with plenty of arbitrary rules that do nothing for security.

There's millions of apps and tons come out every year. This nation-wide 'unit' will have to be constantly 'measuring them for security'. This isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

Either have a secure phone with pre-installed apps (ie, just a browser plus encrypted phone/messenger, military mapping tools, etc) and let them install nothing (which means they'll just use their private phone any way for the OPSEC fail stuff). Or let them do whatever and selectively ban the ones like TikTok which are massive surveillance potential just based on its popularity alone. These one-off or watching for bad-stuff and react approach makes far more sense to me.

They have identified TikTok as a threat, and so they have removed that threat.

Yes and I'm advocating to continue taking that one-off approach instead of making some "ministry of apps" in the Navy to pre-approve every one of them.

I'm not sure why they would evaluate any apps other than the ones they want to consider allowing people to install. It certainly does sound wasteful to evaluate something no one wants.

It's a device issued by your employer.

It doesn't matter if it's a laptop or a phone, you should only be using it for work.

Technology is much cheaper than it was 20 years ago. If you're not willing to purchase your own phone or laptop to do what you personally want to do with a device, you're likely not good at budgeting or decision making.

They are not going to evaluate every single app to see if it should be white-listed. I expect they have a short list under consideration.

You are right, there are millions of apps and nobody would be able to manually review them all.

The question then becomes, which error state is more acceptable for the organization? A system that occasionally misses malicious apps? Or a system that occasionally blocks a non-malicious app?

> One off bans makes more sense, a whole unit set up to pre-approve millions of potential apps is crazy-town.

The meta[1] is more real than most probably realize.

[1] https://www.doncio.navy.mil/TagResults.aspx?ID=22

Reply on news.ycombinator.com