VS 2003 / ActiveSync 4.1

[Rüdiger Kardel]

I'm plannig to buy a new device, running WM 5.0.
Will the combination of VS2003 and ActiveSync 4.1 work together with my
older devices?
( debugging/ WLAN-debugging / WLAN-deployment => CE 4.2 devices )


regards,
Ruediger

 

[Hank]

Yes.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Hi Ruediger,

Wireless sync was removed from AS 4, but everything else should work fine.

 

[Markus Humm]

Hi Ruediger,

Wireless sync was removed from AS 4, but everything else should work fine.

Afaik only for WM 5.0 devices. A shame. They simply should have added
that encryption.

Greetings

Markus

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Markus,

I'm sure they're working on a solution. Don't worry, they've heard the
feedback from everybody who's not happy about losing that feature.

 

[Ilya Tumanov [MS]]

Actually, that won't help. You see, it has nothing to do with sync data been
transferred.

It's quite hard to intercept and in most cases worthless anyway.

It's all about open port on your PC exposed to the internet.


Best regards,


Ilya

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

*** Want to find answers instantly? Here's how... ***

1. Go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework?hl=en
2. Type your question in the text box near "Search this group" button.
3. Hit "Search this group" button.
4. Read answer(s).

 

[Erwin Burgstaller]

I'm plannig to buy a new device, running WM 5.0.
Will the combination of VS2003 and ActiveSync 4.1 work together with my
older devices?
( debugging/ WLAN-debugging / WLAN-deployment => CE 4.2 devices )

You cannot connect over WLAN with ActiveSync 4.1. I would stay with version
3.8 as long as you're not forced to upgrade as it will happen with "Visual
Studio 2005".

Erwin

 

[Markus Humm]

Actually, that won't help. You see, it has nothing to do with sync data been
transferred.

It's quite hard to intercept and in most cases worthless anyway.

It's all about open port on your PC exposed to the internet.

Huh? Then why do we posses webservers etc.? They also provide open
ports... and what good for are firewalls then etc.?

The one who want's to use wireless sync can accept it the others who
don't like that can switch it off. Where's the point?

Greetings

Markus

 

[Ilya Tumanov [MS]]

You are correct, Web Services, etc. also provide open port(s) and they are
potential break in points and pose a security threat.

The difference is what WS is running on a server, hopefully properly secured
and configured by IT professional who knows what (s)he is doing.

As opposed to Active Sync running on somebody's home PC which is hooked up
to DSL via unsecured Wi-Fi with all default settings because that somebody
has no clue about configuring and securing networks and network services.

Firewalls are sure good. If you have one that is and don't just click
"Allow" to pretty much anything.



Best regards,


Ilya

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

*** Want to find answers instantly? Here's how... ***

1. Go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework?hl=en
2. Type your question in the text box near "Search this group" button.
3. Hit "Search this group" button.
4. Read answer(s).

 

[Markus Humm]

You are correct, Web Services, etc. also provide open port(s) and they are
potential break in points and pose a security threat.

The difference is what WS is running on a server, hopefully properly secured
and configured by IT professional who knows what (s)he is doing.

As opposed to Active Sync running on somebody's home PC which is hooked up
to DSL via unsecured Wi-Fi with all default settings because that somebody
has no clue about configuring and securing networks and network services.

Firewalls are sure good. If you have one that is and don't just click
"Allow" to pretty much anything.

You forgot one thing to mention: even a share has its TCP port, so on
nearly all windows networks there are open ports, since Win NT and up do
provide these unecessary administrative shares by default!
Another design fault of Microsoft!

Greetings

Markus

 

[Ilya Tumanov [MS]]

Exactly, that is indeed a huge security hole. There are millions PCs on the
internet with file sharing wide open and guest access allowed.

You don't even need to hack anything to get in.



That's why I have file sharing completely shut down on my laptop so I could
use it in unsecured locations.

In fact, I've no open ports on it at all. And no, I'm not a security freak;
I'm simply aware of the consequences.

If I managed to get you scared, go ahead and check if your PC is secure,
say, here: http://tools-on.net/



Yes, that was a design fault, not just Microsoft's, though. There's
notorious <3 letter company name self censored>'s RPC, sendmail and many,
many others.

It all was designed in pre internet era, that's why everybody was so
careless by today's standard.



Things sure changed and it's hard to get back to secure mode as we're used
to "it just works".

Your network sharing just works. Your administrator connects to these
"unnecessary administrative shares" and it just works.

And so it goes. It has to stop and it sure won't be easy.



Think about your reaction to this obscure AS feature. AS is used by
relatively few and very few even know there was some network sync.

Now imagine what would happen if next version of Windows will have file
sharing off by default. Oh, dear...



Anyway, we're trying to get genie back into the bottle. For example, XP
won't bind file sharing to modem connections by default.

XP's firewall knows about file sharing and would only expose it to subnet.



Best regards,


Ilya

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

*** Want to find answers instantly? Here's how... ***

1. Go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework?hl=en
2. Type your question in the text box near "Search this group" button.
3. Hit "Search this group" button.
4. Read answer(s).