Microsoft's security initiatives

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 Furthermore WinMobile 6 is out. 5 is now out of date.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*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >

"JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> For that matter, I recently read that MP3s introduce vulnerabilities into
> Windows Media Player and other MP3 rendering software.

You talking about this?

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1...2127786,00.htm

It's from 2002 and says WMP is not vulnerable. Or are you talking about
something else that is more recent?

I'm talking about a more recent article I saw on the Web, as recent as last
week. It said that MP3s introduce vulnerabilities into their rendering
software.

And like I had mentioned in a previous post in this topic, my computer is
being controlled by someone else other than me.

JJ

"Noddy" wrote:

> "JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > For that matter, I recently read that MP3s introduce vulnerabilities into
> > Windows Media Player and other MP3 rendering software.
>
> You talking about this?
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1...2127786,00.htm
>
> It's from 2002 and says WMP is not vulnerable. Or are you talking about
> something else that is more recent?
>
>

Folks, let's review what a firewall is supposed to do.

Consider desktop (meaning not Mobile) Windows. Its IP stack has a number of
listening sockets--ports that are open and waiting for incoming connections.
For instance: RPC portmapper on 135/tcp, various NetBIOS components on
137/udp and 138/udp and 139/tcp, plus a few others.

If you connect this computer to the Internet, you really don't want it to
accept any incoming connections on these ports. The purpose of a firewall is
to block unsolicited inbound traffic. Without a firewall, you have no
control over what someone might hurl at your network connection. A firewall
gives you this control. When the firewall is configured, the only traffic
that enters your computer is reply traffic to outbound requests. (Plus, you
could write rules to permit inbound traffic to certain ports, if you want.)

What if the IP stack had *no* listening sockets? Well, that stack wouldn't
need a firewall. There's nothing there for a firewall to protect. Firewalls
protect stacks by blocking inbound traffic to listening sockets. If there
are no listening sockets, firewalls are useless.

The stack in Windows Mobile is this kind of stack. It has no listening
sockets. The only traffic that enters the stack is reply traffic--which all
firewalls permit anyway. Because of its design, the Windows Mobile stack
doesn't require a firewall. Save your money (and memory and CPU
power)--don't install one.

JJ, a firewall isn't a panacea. It can't stop every kind of attack. I can't
comment on the troubles that you seem to be having (and, like the others
here, my WM device is always connected to the network and hasn't had a
single problem) -- but I can assure you that a firewall wouldn't have
helped.

Steve Riley
steve.riley@microsoft.com
http://blogs.technet.com/steriley


"Jorge" <Jorge@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:537A36E4-3BEB-48CE-B6C9-7A5C8D584892@microsoft.com...
> 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*
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >

Thanks for the Firewall 101. However, how do you explain applications
starting up randomly and my Wi-Fi access turning on randomly when I leave my
device connected to the Internet?

JJ

"Steve Riley [MSFT]" wrote:

> Folks, let's review what a firewall is supposed to do.
>
> Consider desktop (meaning not Mobile) Windows. Its IP stack has a number of
> listening sockets--ports that are open and waiting for incoming connections.
> For instance: RPC portmapper on 135/tcp, various NetBIOS components on
> 137/udp and 138/udp and 139/tcp, plus a few others.
>
> If you connect this computer to the Internet, you really don't want it to
> accept any incoming connections on these ports. The purpose of a firewall is
> to block unsolicited inbound traffic. Without a firewall, you have no
> control over what someone might hurl at your network connection. A firewall
> gives you this control. When the firewall is configured, the only traffic
> that enters your computer is reply traffic to outbound requests. (Plus, you
> could write rules to permit inbound traffic to certain ports, if you want.)
>
> What if the IP stack had *no* listening sockets? Well, that stack wouldn't
> need a firewall. There's nothing there for a firewall to protect. Firewalls
> protect stacks by blocking inbound traffic to listening sockets. If there
> are no listening sockets, firewalls are useless.
>
> The stack in Windows Mobile is this kind of stack. It has no listening
> sockets. The only traffic that enters the stack is reply traffic--which all
> firewalls permit anyway. Because of its design, the Windows Mobile stack
> doesn't require a firewall. Save your money (and memory and CPU
> power)--don't install one.
>
> JJ, a firewall isn't a panacea. It can't stop every kind of attack. I can't
> comment on the troubles that you seem to be having (and, like the others
> here, my WM device is always connected to the network and hasn't had a
> single problem) -- but I can assure you that a firewall wouldn't have
> helped.
>
> Steve Riley
> steve.riley@microsoft.com
> http://blogs.technet.com/steriley
>
>
> "Jorge" <Jorge@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:537A36E4-3BEB-48CE-B6C9-7A5C8D584892@microsoft.com...
> > 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*
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >

"JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B3BB92C1-CB38-4AE5-9B57-8DF99957E115@microsoft.com...
> I'm talking about a more recent article I saw on the Web, as recent as
> last
> week. It said that MP3s introduce vulnerabilities into their rendering
> software.
>
> And like I had mentioned in a previous post in this topic, my computer is
> being controlled by someone else other than me.
>
> JJ

Then why can't I find any info on it when I search with google? Either
provide the proof or I am apt to believe it is BS.

Well, I can't find the article anymore. It was some professor in some
university that said he was going to hold back information about these
vulnerabilities since he has not fully investigated them. He said when he has
enough info, he was going to email the MP3 player manufacturers. Now, he was
talking about Windows-based MP3 players, not the $39.99 players you get at
tigerdirect.ca.



"Crazy Noddy" wrote:

> "JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B3BB92C1-CB38-4AE5-9B57-8DF99957E115@microsoft.com...
> > I'm talking about a more recent article I saw on the Web, as recent as
> > last
> > week. It said that MP3s introduce vulnerabilities into their rendering
> > software.
> >
> > And like I had mentioned in a previous post in this topic, my computer is
> > being controlled by someone else other than me.
> >
> > JJ
>
> Then why can't I find any info on it when I search with google? Either
> provide the proof or I am apt to believe it is BS.
>
>

Like I said, I can't explain that--I've never seen such behavior myself, nor
have I heard of it before. Malware can enter a computer in many ways.
Firewalls are only one of many methods for defending a computer. But in the
case of Windows Mobile, firewalls are unnecessary because the kind of
defense they provide isn't required for that operating system.

Steve Riley
steve.riley@microsoft.com
http://blogs.technet.com/steriley


"JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E59FD50-041C-4504-BA5A-C909F71D4AE4@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the Firewall 101. However, how do you explain applications
> starting up randomly and my Wi-Fi access turning on randomly when I leave
> my
> device connected to the Internet?
>
> JJ
>
> "Steve Riley [MSFT]" wrote:
>
>> Folks, let's review what a firewall is supposed to do.
>>
>> Consider desktop (meaning not Mobile) Windows. Its IP stack has a number
>> of
>> listening sockets--ports that are open and waiting for incoming
>> connections.
>> For instance: RPC portmapper on 135/tcp, various NetBIOS components on
>> 137/udp and 138/udp and 139/tcp, plus a few others.
>>
>> If you connect this computer to the Internet, you really don't want it to
>> accept any incoming connections on these ports. The purpose of a firewall
>> is
>> to block unsolicited inbound traffic. Without a firewall, you have no
>> control over what someone might hurl at your network connection. A
>> firewall
>> gives you this control. When the firewall is configured, the only traffic
>> that enters your computer is reply traffic to outbound requests. (Plus,
>> you
>> could write rules to permit inbound traffic to certain ports, if you
>> want.)
>>
>> What if the IP stack had *no* listening sockets? Well, that stack
>> wouldn't
>> need a firewall. There's nothing there for a firewall to protect.
>> Firewalls
>> protect stacks by blocking inbound traffic to listening sockets. If there
>> are no listening sockets, firewalls are useless.
>>
>> The stack in Windows Mobile is this kind of stack. It has no listening
>> sockets. The only traffic that enters the stack is reply traffic--which
>> all
>> firewalls permit anyway. Because of its design, the Windows Mobile stack
>> doesn't require a firewall. Save your money (and memory and CPU
>> power)--don't install one.
>>
>> JJ, a firewall isn't a panacea. It can't stop every kind of attack. I
>> can't
>> comment on the troubles that you seem to be having (and, like the others
>> here, my WM device is always connected to the network and hasn't had a
>> single problem) -- but I can assure you that a firewall wouldn't have
>> helped.
>>
>> Steve Riley
>> steve.riley@microsoft.com
>> http://blogs.technet.com/steriley
>>
>>
>> "Jorge" <Jorge@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:537A36E4-3BEB-48CE-B6C9-7A5C8D584892@microsoft.com...
>> > 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*
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >

"JJ" <JJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24F06E7E-115A-4FF4-9B08-31D9F94C84E7@microsoft.com...
> Well, I can't find the article anymore. It was some professor in some
> university that said he was going to hold back information about these
> vulnerabilities since he has not fully investigated them. He said when he
> has
> enough info, he was going to email the MP3 player manufacturers.

Just as I thought, it is BS.