Re: Windows mobile 5/activesync4/bluetooth over ethernet

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Chris,
Not wishing to clutter usefull threads or waste time arguing, but this is
actually a big issue, and we are discussing the merits.

I would take your points regarding security, however I tried to address
these points in regards remote activesync.

In which the level of security for "old" remote-sync is as high as that of
VPN/RADIUS/RAS/ActiveDirectory systems is it not???

Clearly the "hurdle" level for unautherised access is the same as for most
existing Ent. extranet systems. (please correct me if im wrong).

In mitigation of MS, I can see the senario where an AD member looses their
PPC. How secure are the credentials then? Does PPC encypt cached
credentials? and so on. Would the same not apply to Exchange member!?!

This could have been resolved in WM5 could it not? As per my other post,
rather than simply diconecting the internet when the first hacker appeared,
we chose to "work" the problem. Has MS failed to look hard at the problem
(or maybe they did!) and chose the easy "safe" option and turned it off!

Ironically, someone will develop a work round im sure, or an addon app etc.
Then where will the Ent. security be?? Evolution finds a way. Question is
are MS going to help make it a better evolutionary step, or encourage
uncontrolled mutation??

In summary then, what is the technical ARGUMENT in favour of dropping
remotesync, how is AD and Exchange signifanctly more secure??

Regarding RIM, I wonder who will win that legal battle?

Rgds

"Chris De Herrera" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:enn%23PlKBGHA.2896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
> Just as a background note, security is a real concern here. RIM is not
> being used by some governments because the wrong e-mails have been sent to
> devices. So if e-mail is vulnerable on the Pocket PC or Smartpjhone then
> it would affect companies that allow users to purchase and install them.
>
>
> --
> Chris De Herrera
> http://www.pocketpcfaq.com
> http://www.tabletpctalk.com
> http://www.pocketpctalk.com
> http://www.mobilitytalk.com
>
> "jd" <jd@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eQodOSKBGHA.1676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "humbug" The Enterprise had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Are we really suppose to believe that VPN tunnels, NAT and
>> WindowsAuthentication is so weak that its even concievable that someone
>> with the expertise to get in would waste his time to access a few
>> contacts and emails rather than simply access the entire domain! (which
>> he'd be able to do, if he got far enough to do an unautherised remote
>> sync)
>>
>> Come on pull the other one its got bells on it (pun intended).
>>
>> NO NO NO NO
>>
>> The reason remote sync was pulled was for 2 simple reasons:
>>
>> 1) SME and personal users struggled with the VPN, Ports etc (even with
>> the right credentials!!) generating lots of complaints and heartache!
>>
>> 2) MS thought, we can ensure SME (or Ent.) use exchange!!! $$$$$$$
>>
>> OIL.....I mean MONEY, thats what its really about.
>>
>> Not forgetting Push-eMail ;)
>>
>> JD
>>
>> "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns973128544727ceebeechesterstartco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Sven" <sejohannsen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> microsoft.public.pocketpc.activesync:
>>>
>>>> To be a little fair, though, considering the heat MS takes for security
>>>> in general, there was no chance this could have gone unaddressed. The
>>>> tradeoff between using resources to develop what may have been seen as
>>>> an ineffective solution, and just plugging the hole, must have fallen
>>>> on
>>>> the side of plugging the hole.
>>>
>>> Agree. That's quite the relevant addition, methinks. In a time where
>>> WiFi
>>> buzzes our collective brains out with 2.4GHz radiation all around MS
>>> should
>>> have solved the problem instead of walking around it, effectively
>>> ignoring
>>> it.
>>>
>>> My point though was that in this case the policy wasn't _initiated_ by
>>> MS,
>>> but by the enterprise users.
>>>
>>> --
>>> CeeBee
>>>
>>> *** The Cookie Has Spoken ***
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Change security in the registry
    ... I need to change a security in the registry, in remote ... Chris. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
  • Re: remote control program
    ... The security of the interface has nothing to do with SSL. ... the security of your online banking technology also has nothing to do with SSL. ... If the technology was not properly assessed by a qualified security team then I wouldn't trust it. ... for remote work to the same location who complains about jitter and delay ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • RE: remote control program
    ... consider that you meant back-end security measures when I responded; ... I've never seen a vulnerability reported on them anywhere, ... To get in to the application one does not need credentials, ... when you attempt a remote session. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Active Directory/HIPPA Question
    ... The client ... > roll out AD when their top priority this year is securing the applications ... Security is one of the biggest reasons. ... ESPECIALLY if you have 800 remote offices. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: DomainLocalServer$ is not a valid user
    ... it can be a BIG security hole. ... Local System or Network Service account on a machine makes a remote request ... things have access to your SQL Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)