Agree... I don´t know how Windows mobile implements tcp/ip security, but it
should implement some kind of firewall.
If it has or not, I don't know. However, most development is done on .net
which is a less vulnerable platform to be succesfully "hacked" from outsiders.
If your wireless is on, it will still drain your battery... The firewall
should check if packages are allowed or not.
Here is something you may want to look at. Just did a google search.
http://www.mobilearmor.com
"JJ" wrote:
> I bought a Windows Mobile 5 device since the only carrier that had a Windows
> Mobile 6 device did not have Wi-Fi capability on that device (at least, at
> the time I bought my device).
>
> All carriers in Canada still sell Windows Mobile 5 devices.
>
> And the attack surface shouldn't be the criteria that warrants a firewall.
> Any device connected to the Internet must be protected by a firewall.
>
> JJ
>
> "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks" wrote:
>
> > At this point in time the attack surface of such a device is such that
> > you are probably the one and only person I've ever seen report
> > "intrusions" on such a device.
> >
> > Even Fsecure that has a a/v for mobile apps have stated that they've not
> > seen many in the wild (if at all that I recall)
> >
> > The best way to prove true "intrusions" is to fire up some sort of
> > packet sniffer.
> >
> > Furthermore WinMobile 6 is out. 5 is now out of date.
> >
> > JJ wrote:
> > > OK. While I was connected to the Internet with the always-on connection at
> > > first(rather than Wi-Fi), the intrusions would start up applications on my
> > > device, start-up Wi-Fi access, which caused the battery level to drop, etc.
> > >
> > > Are those intrusions adequate to warrant your support?
> > >
> > > And even if the attacks did not occur, which they did, I would still blame
> > > Microsoft for not bundling a firewall with Windows Mobile 2005.
> > >
> > > "Alun Jones" wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think Paul's point was to ask you to be specific about one or more such
> > >> "attacks".
> > >>
> > >> So far, all you've said is that something vague has happened, and you blame
> > >> Microsoft. You're apparently looking for support in your aspersions, which
> > >> is something that most people will only give if they have information to
> > >> start from.
> > >>
> > >> Alun.
> > >> ~~~~
> > >>
> > >> "JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:FDDD2F21-7652-4781-B084-7D88C9E62C1F@microsoft.com...
> > >>> Well, I would call any intrusion into my Windows Mobile device an attack.
> > >>> Wouldn't you?
> > >>>
> > >>> "Paul Smith" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> "JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >>>> news:CB4EE328-CDD3-4C03-BA1E-CFB3726D8EA3@microsoft.com...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I recently bought a Windows Mobile 2005 device. I use it to connect to
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> Internet and check my email, check stock quotes, etc. And I was
> > >>>>> attacked
> > >>>>> every time I connected. So, I've now disabled the Internet connection
> > >>>>> feature
> > >>>>> that comes with the device and only use Wi-Fi to connect. This way, I
> > >>>>> don't
> > >>>>> have an always-on connection to the Internet. I can turn off Wi-Fi
> > >>>>> access
> > >>>>> when I don't need it.
> > >>>> What do you mean you were "attacked"?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Paul Smith,
> > >>>> Yeovil, UK.
> > >>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> > >>>> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
> > >>>> http://www.windowsresource.net/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >