LOL -- ME2
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Maglinger, Paul <pmaglin...@scvl.com> wrote: > And I don't think that Tim Berners Lee ever imagined that the number one > use for the internet would be p*rn. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 10:00 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > What an interesting thread. I heard that the number #1 mobile device > connecting to Microsoft’s Exchange Servers is the iPhone. Rumours, surely. > > > > > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 2:10 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: iPhone experience > > > > Well said. > > > > As much as I dont like it for business, I do love this thing. I recently > mounted and hard-wired audio/charging into my car, and I couldnt be happier > with it (since its Jailbroken *snicker*). > > > > I do wish they would expidite more corporate features. But with the > MobileMe service push, I just dont see that happening anytime soon. > > -- > ME2 > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Mayo, Bill <bem...@pittcountync.gov> > wrote: > > I was responding to "how do all the iphone lovers feel now" question you > asked. There is no context in that question about corporations or > enterprise readiness. I love my iPhone, so I felt qualified to answer the > question that was posed. I definitely understand how intention doesn't > always directly correspond to what your fingers type, so "no harm, no foul" > from my perspective. > > > > I agree with you that the iPhone is not quite enterprise ready, at least > from the perspective of companies that have specific data they need > protected via legal requirement. That is not every company, though, and I > am certain there are many places that the current functionality is "good > enough". What I don't agree with is that Apple is touting that all security > issues for enterprises are addressed. As someone that has followed this > pretty closely since the iPhone was announced, I feel safe saying that Apple > created and designed a consumer phone with the idea in the back of their > head that this might have some enterprise use in the future. Apple is first > and foremost a consumer product company and have been for a very, very long > time. That is not to say that they haven't tried to dabble in the > enterprise market some (e.g. XSAN), but that is not their core focus. When > the iPhone originally came out, people came out of the woodwork asking for > enterprise features. Apple began trying to address that, adding some > features in each subsequent release. They have made quite a bit of progress > in a short amount of time. But it is just that: a short amount of time. > It's like people complaining about the issues with the App Store, which > didn't even open until July 2008 (just over a year). I think it's safe to > say that they were overwhelmed by the scale of the success (developers, > downloads) of the whole thing. Again, it is obvious they are working to > correct issues on it, but it is still basically just out of diapers. But > back to the main point, Apple has been working to add the features that > people are demanding and sometimes marketing-speak can make you look silly. > Again, the iPhone is first and foremost a consumer device, so they have to > balance the development resources appropriately (in other words, they just > aren't going to focus on enterprise functions and ignore all those folks > that want whiz-bang new features, like video). > > > > I think we can agree that the iPhone is not the answer for every > business. However, the iPhone is a fantastic piece of tech, and cannot be > dismissed as silly/crap/junk as so often comes up on this list. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] > > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 4:32 PM > > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > > > "I am not carrying around credit card information on my phone. For better > or worse, there isn't a whole lot of personal information on the phone that > people couldn't dig up other ways anyway." > > > > Nobody cares about that data anyway. Totally besides the point. > > *Corporate data leaks, corporate espionage, HIPAA, Sarbanes Oxley, etc. > That's > the issue.* > > > > Apple is trying to tout that the iPhone is Enterprise Ready, and that they > have addressed all the security issues Enterprises have been asking > for. Not the case. > > > > I'm happy with my users that are on AES-192 FIPS Certified > Devices. iPhones, not so much. > > > > Goodlink has had AES, Polices, Remote Wipe, etc, etc for YEARS. I'm sure > BB has too. It's amazing how slow other companies are picking it up. > > > > That being said, I still DO agree with many of your points :) > > > > -Sam > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 12:24 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > You read those articles, right? You phrase your statement to indicate that > Apple is actively misleading people ("lied") telling people that something > is in place that isn't. The first article is a hacker saying he can work > around the encryption and I assume he can. That doesn't indicate that Apple > "lies" when they say they encrypt the data. Is it a "lie" to say that WEP > is encryption because it can be broken? You have to understand that > encryption was *just* added. At this point, I'm sure they understand they > have a problem and I am sure they are working on it. > > > > As for the second link, that is referring to the report that with older > versions of the iPhone OS, it incorrectly reported to Exchange Server that > it had encryption. This has been fixed in the current version of the OS, > and I think that is all you can expect. But the bigger point here is that > Exchange simply blindly trusts any device that connects to it about such > things. Does Microsoft not bear any culpability? There is a valid argument > that vendors shouldn't misrepresent, but if you go back to your hacker in > the first link, it would be trivial for someone to alter traffic from an > otherwise legit device to say that it did offer encryption and blow up your > policies anyway. Again, Exchange working on the honor system is just as > much of a problem as the now-corrected behavior of the iPhone. > > > > I fail to see how any of the last 4 links have anything to do with lying, > iPhone security, or encryption. Just a bunch of complaints saying that > Apple shouldn't advertise software that it is 100% your choice to download > or not. > > > > As for my "I feel just fine" response, I offer the following. I am not > carrying around credit card information on my phone. For better or worse, > there isn't a whole lot of personal information on the phone that people > couldn't dig up other ways anyway. But if it were missing, I have the > ability to: 1) locate where it is on a map, and 2) remotely wipe it. And I > would imagine that the odds are in my favor that any person that might steal > the phone is not a hacker anyway. > > > > Every time an iPhone topic comes up on this list, you can determine the > tenor of the response from the name of the sender (myself included, no > doubt). I really don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape > whenever comes up, but to each their own. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 12:56 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > "Again, source? I feel just fine." > > > > > > Just to recap a few articles that were referenced in this thread: > > > > > > > > "Hacker Says iPhone 3GS Encryption Is 'Useless' for Businesses" > http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/iphone-encryption/ > > > > iPhone has been lying about it's compliance with security policies > http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/other-iphone-lie-vpn-policy-support-865 > > > > Apple pushes iPod/iTunes/iPhone update that includes the Apache web server: > http://www.itworld.com/security/79064/dont-need-it-dont-install-it > > http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/09/apple-releases-iphone-configuration-utility-2-1-for-mac-and-windows-and-mobile-me-control-panel-for-windows > > http://blogs.computerworld.com/14808/apple_shovelware_problems_again_iphone_configuration_utility > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138620/Apple_pushes_unnecessary_software_to_Windows_PCs > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 11:48 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > Again, source? I feel just fine. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Steve Ens [mailto:stevey...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 12:12 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: iPhone experience > > Another question - how do all the iphone lovers *feel *now that they know > the security on their precious devices is crap and that Apple lied about the > included encryption? > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Sam Cayze <sam.ca...@rollouts.com> wrote: > > "So how many of you that have deployed the iPhone have had to deal with > physical damage" > > > > I have, but this guy breaks any phone he touches. Many of my friends have > them, and they seem to hold up quite well. > > The problem is that At&t's excludes Assurion Insurance on the iPhone. (All > other carries offer a damage insurance for smartphones, with a $50 or so > deductable). A MUST IMO. > > > > That will leave you high and dry when someone breaks an iPhone. > > 1. Get 3rd party Insurance on the iPhone (http://www.squaretrade.com), or > check your Ins policy at work. You might be able to add a policy rider. > (It was a rip off where I worked, I opted for square trade) > > 2. Keep a spare on hand. (Or at least a dumbphone), in case the user's > phone breaks, and needs one ASAP. > > > > > > *Another reason for 3rd Party coverage:* > > Apple and At&t are NOT offering replacements to users that have bricked > iPhones during an upgrade to say OS 3.1. > > (Ridiculous, I know, don't get me started). > > > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 10:36 AM > > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > > > So let me pose an iPhone question. > > Compared to a BB, how does it physically hold up. I have guys here that > just beat the living hell out of their phones and of course they are also > the ones who want iPhones and the iPhone just looks too delicate for day to > day usage by a lot of folks. > > The BB can take a hell of a beating and short of the occasional track ball > replacement, I rarely have to replace them unless someone has dropped it in > a toilet or some other catastrophic issue. > > But that glass front on the iPhone scares me. > > So how many of you that have deployed the iPhone have had to deal with > physical damage? > > > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 8:25 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: iPhone experience > > > > OK, so my reply to you: > > > > I didnt say to pin it on anything. I said it can be done; which is true. > > > > I didnt say to do it or not to; only that its possible. I really dont know > how I could have written a more neutral statement about it originally or in > my reply to you. I dont think its fair to say I'm being disingenuous > because of my intentional neutrality. > > > > Touché on the open source bits of router firmware, which opens the door > wide for any modifications. My mistake for neglecting to take that into > consideration. But, these forums have not been quick to uphold Microsoft's > licensing when it comes to phone firmware/software customization. Theft, > sure. Customization? No. > > > > Jailbreaking is not theft. Your comparison to BitTorrent use was disingenuous > - for real. > -- > ME2 > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr > <michealespin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see what was "disingenuous" about my reply to Bob. > > Not your reply to Bob, you reply to me. Which I read along the > lines of, "Oh, I didn't mean you should actually *do* what I was > talking about, I was just saying it's theoretically possible." You > want to argue you don't think it's a big deal, or you interpret the > license different, or something like that (which you did, now), okay. > I might not agree, but I can respect that. But playing language > lawyer to try and dodge ownership of what you say -- that is bogus. I > have no respect for that. Maybe that's not what you intended to mean, > in which case, I apologize. > > > > Its funny, because whenever someone wants to get better access control > with > > a home router, there are plenty of recommendations for DD-WRT. > > The license agreements with those routers don't prohibit third-party > firmware. Indeed, in many cases, they're specifically required to > release the source under the GPL. Some even advertise their > compatibility with third-party firmware as a feature, e.g., WRT54GL. > > Apple/AT&T forbids it in their licenses, release updates to counter > it, and threatens legal action. > > See the difference? > > > Apple is not special. > > No, they're not. And these forums are usually pretty quick to > uphold Microsoft's licenses. So why not Apple's? > > -- Ben > > > > > > >
