Proposal Outline Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Proposal Outline - Assignment Example No profits arise, as any surplus income over expenditure is paid as extra rebate to the Department of Defense, normally to service central funds. DEFCO is monetarily self-sufficient, has no assets or shareholders and provides no personal interests. No one has taken any stake in the organization [1]. DEFCO has self-service shops in all the military camps. In total, it has 29 shops, which provide services to Military Personnel. Initially it was created solely for service provision regardless of whether a branch was making profit or not. Over the years, it managed to adopt profit motives and achieve growth in both sales and profitability. It has also managed to expand its branch network to a maximum of 29 shops. The Managing Director of DEFCO working in collaboration with various Chief Officers is responsible for managing the organization. The DEFCO Board of Management exercises the daily operation of DEFCO through the Managing Director who is appointed by this board. The policy of DEFCO is in the hands of Council of Members who comprise the Chief of General staff as chairman, the Army, Commanders and the Managing Director of DEFCO act as members. The ICT department uses the centralized management technique. This makes is difficult to be able to sort a problem that arises in those shops that are located in distant places. This resulted to many problems being presented to the Help Desk, hence becoming difficult to tackle the problems all at once. Therefore, this technique is not efficient in solving of problems. The E-Business Suite is a new system, and a good number of the employees have the proper expertise of how to go about it. As a result, many mistakes are made and it takes time for those mistakes to be

Android Security Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Android Security - Research Paper Example The authors continue by stating that in fact, ICC mediation defines the core security structure and is the article’s focus, but it improves on the assurances provided by the underlying Linux system (Enck, Ongtang and McDaniel 53). The rest of the subtopic goes deep into the security enforcement element of the Android operating system, covering the mandatory access control (MAC) among other features. The next subtopic is security refinements, with a short introduction. Under this comes a discussion of public vs. private components, implicitly open components, broadcast intent permissions, content provider permissions, service hooks, protected APIs, permission protection levels, pending intents, and URI permissions (Enck, Ongtang and McDaniel 54). The final subtopic in the article is lessons in defining policy, which covers the results (experiences) the author have had after working with the Android security policy. They state that the results showed that Android security policy starts with a relatively simple easy-to-understand MAC enforcement model, but the number and subtlety of refinements make it hard for someone to discover an application’s policy by simply looking at it (Enck, Ongtang and McDaniel 56). Some refinements push policy into the application code while others add delegation, which combines discretionary controls into the otherwise typical MAC model (Enck, Ongtang and McDaniel 56). This scenario makes mustering a firm grasp on Android's security model non-trivial.