Cisco has 60,000 Internet-connected devices in its BYOD program at the end of 2012 and just under 14,000 were iPads, the company says in its 2013 Annual Security Report. Apple\u2019s iPads and iPhones have flooded in under Cisco\u2019s BYOD program which the company\u2019s executives have partially credited for killing Cius, the doomed enterprise Android tablet that Cisco pronounced dead late last May. While it reports Android malware growth at 2,577 percent, it notes that mobile malware encounters are \u201conly 0.5 percent of all web malware encounters\u201d in 2012.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In 2012, Cisco added 11,000 smartphones and tablets companywide and has nearing an equal ratio of mobile devices to staff. \u201cAt the end of 2012, there were nearly 60,000 smartphones and tablets in use in the organisation\u2014including just under 14,000 iPads\u2014and all of them were Bring Your Own (BYO).\u201d Cisco execs have been giving regular updates about its BYOD program in recent times, no doubt because it sells UTM appliances, identity management and other services against the trend.<\/p>\n
SAP\/Sybase blogger Eric Lai, who has been tracking large iPad deployments, noted from a conference in early May last year that Cisco had 21,000 iPhones, 8,144 iPads and 2,000 Cius tablets (it killed the device later that month). Outside a 5,000 device BYOD program, SAP offers staff a range of 10 smart devices and under that program manages 20,000 iPads, 20,000 iPhones, 4,000 Samsung Android devices, and a smaller number of BlackBerry and Windows Phone devices.<\/p>\n
Link: http:\/\/www.cso.com.au\/article\/452398\/cisco_has_14k_byod_ipads_says_android_malware_big_threat\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=959"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3446,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959\/revisions\/3446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}