Comments on littlesandpit: How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the Bla...

I wrote a follow-up on which uses less traffic: BB...

2007-04-02T11:10:00.000+08:00

I wrote a follow-up on which uses less traffic: BB or Pocket PC. YOu can find it here:

http://www.techatplay.com/2006/11/28/which-uses-less-traffic-blackberry-push-or-microsoft-direct-push/

In future, refer only to the blog at the new location. www.techatplay.com

Firstly, we've been on the BB environment for abou...

2007-03-26T21:53:00.000+08:00

Firstly, we've been on the BB environment for about 2 years.

We received the BES server without charge and run it on a VMware server. Therefore we theoretically do not have any additional costs. They even threw in the client licences. We recently tried a few WM50 devices and noticed that its always connected. This could be a major issue for companies like our that have 30% of the users travelling overseas (I'm in the US). One of our user who took it for a couple week trip incurred an 800+ dollar roaming data charge on the WM5 device while another user only incurred a 36 dollar charge for 7 days. I know its not apples to apples but it doesn't have to be with this large of a cost gap.

Just my 2 cents too

Not really a security loophole. That's the problem...

2006-11-03T05:04:00.000+08:00

Not really a security loophole. That's the problem every mobile worker is facing. Harddisk on notebook is not encrypted, flash memory in Pocket PC is not encrypted...

I heard that both Vista BitLocker feature and next release of Windows Mobile will encrypt both internal and external storage, that means you can encrypt your miniSD card too.

Gold blasts Win Mobile 5 security http://www.mobi...

2006-11-02T19:58:00.000+08:00

Gold blasts Win Mobile 5 security

http://www.mobilemonday.net/mm/story.php?story_id=5045

Timo Poropudas

1 Nov 2006 at 19:47

The security architecture of Windows Mobile 5 is faulty, claims analyst Jack Gold of J. Gold Associates in a report published last week. Gold says that Microsoft Exchange and Windows Mobile 5 cannot sync encrypted data.

Gold’s report, “Microsoft’s Direct Push Insecurity”, says that the problem lies with AirSync, a derivative of ActiveSync used to transfer data to devices. ActiveSync and AirSync can only transfer datasets with specific types of formatting; meaning encrypted data can’t be transferred from Exchange Server to Pocket Outlook.

The data is encrypted while in transit, via an SSL link, but not on the device. “We believe that companies considering the use of Microsoft Direct Push Exchange technology should be very cautious,” Gold says in the report.

That leaves only a password mechanism between unauthorised users and corporate data. That is not enough for many companies. In particular, companies such as financial services firms and health-care organisations, which operate under tight regulatory restrictions, are likely to need on-device encryption.

Windows Mobile will be the topic of the November MobileMonday event in Helsinki. The participants of the event will have a chance to put a security question directly to Microsoft representatives.

The beauty of MSFP solution is that it works on al...

2006-11-02T18:06:00.000+08:00

The beauty of MSFP solution is that it works on all kind of network, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, EVDO, Wi-Fi, HSDPA. You name it, MSFP support it! As long as you can use a web browser to connect to Internet, MSFP rocks!

In BlackBerry solution, you have to pay the mobile operator a premium. And you are limited to what device they offer, and slow GPRS/EDGE network.

About security... think about if a hacker publiciz...

2006-11-02T17:46:00.000+08:00

About security... think about if a hacker publicize a security hole on newsgroup, guess who will fill up that hole faster, Microsoft or RIM? Who will let you know when it fixed the problem?

WM devices are connected to frontend Exchange server (client access), not directly to those backend Exchange (storage). In a standard deployment without registry hacks, admin have to separate the mail solution into at least two servers, firewall inbetween is optional. But hey, it's common practice to protected internal server from DMZ.

If your network got Outlook Web Access, admin will not need to configure additional port for Direct Push. Both OWA and MSFP runs on top of IIS on same port. And it is secure connection.

24/7 Direct Push run for a month will only cost you slightly more than 1 MB of data flow (assume no e-mail receive).

HTTPS traffic served by a proxy is in its *purest* form. As proxy cannot read/parse data in HTTPS connection, therefore, proxying HTTPS data is actually doing nothing but just copying raw bits from client to server. Since HTTPS is so simple (just copy data, no cache at all), all web proxy server on the market support HTTPS. And it's the beauty of HTTPS too. No one worry about HTTPS proxy at all!

Direct Push is also available on WM2003 platform by third-party product. No intermediate server is required too.

Totally agree with the vast majority of what you s...

2006-11-01T21:06:00.000+08:00

Totally agree with the vast majority of what you say here. I have rolled out 30 devices using the MS push solution, and have plans for a further 100 (Smartphones) without any additional infrastructure costs.

You are absolutely right about device stability, and as you point out, the avarage WM device does a hell of a lot more than the RIM equivelant. However WM devices are getting more and more stable, I haven't had a crash on my current device for a few months and a soft reset always fixes the problem.

Just to pick up on the security comment, I work for a company with very strict security rules and we had no problems getting a secure solution authorised (I don't want to go into details for obvious reasons!) but I also suspect that the "2 servers" which MS use for push may well be for security. In addition, if you really want to get paranoid over security there are well documented options for integrating certificates and even tokens such as those supplied by RSA to restrict access.

Some other advantages are the huge selection of devices available (including some very good smartphones which give real convergence), the ability to use UMTS or even WiFi for downloading those chunky attachments on certain devices and lastly the integration of major MS applications (SharePoint, LCS etc)that is starting to appear for Windows Mobile.

ditto concerning read receipts... Now I love EAS/...

2006-11-01T07:14:00.000+08:00

ditto concerning read receipts...

Now I love EAS/DirectPush, but it doesn't work for receipts. If you read a message on your device, it doesn't update status until you receive a new item FROM the server. Read Receipt status on the device NEVER initiates a Server resync...

Going more into security, I'm not sure how many se...

2006-10-31T19:51:00.000+08:00

Going more into security, I'm not sure how many security officers like the idea of direct ActiveSync access from the Internet to the internal exchange server. even if you move the exchange to the DMZ, attackers may gain access to more users information then only the ones who use WM5.

Its BlackBerry, not Blackberry. If you want to so...

2006-10-30T23:59:00.000+08:00

Its BlackBerry, not Blackberry.

If you want to sound intelligent when writing about something, at least write the name correctly.

This posting looks very, very biased and is actual...

2006-10-30T23:56:00.000+08:00

This posting looks very, very biased and is actually based on something you have been told, rather than something you have experienced in real life.

You happily forget to mention that the battery life on any Windows Mobile device is about 12-14 hours when Direct Push is used as apposed to a BlackBerry (which depending on the model) is 3-7 days.

You also forget to mention that BlackBerry Connect is available so the Blackberry experienced can be used on Symbian, Palm OS, and Windows Mobile.

There are also tons more third party apps for the BlackBerry than you are letting on.

You are also forgetting how your firewall/proxy infrastructure will have to be beefed up to handle thousands of constantly open https sessions. This is a real cost that you are not talking about. The BES requires one outgoing SRP connection.

As the previous poster noted, device security is not available for Direct Connect. No easy access to the corporate network as offered via the BlackBerry MDS connection.

Direct Push has 4 "IT Policy" settings which do not include things like what apps the user can or cannot install, device-side encryption, etc., etc.

Here in the real world, RIM still wins. Microsoft has an immature product right now.

My two cents based on actual experience in an ente...

2006-10-30T21:49:00.000+08:00

My two cents based on actual experience in an enterprise setting (BES 4.x talking to Exchange 2003 SP2, versus WM5 talking to Exchange 2003 SP2). Most of my comments about shortcomings of the WM5 platform can be addressed by 3rd party software or by waiting for Crossbow/Exchange 2007.

The "read status" is not as well-implemented as you might think. The chief complaint from our users is that if you read a message on your WM5 device, and then immediately delete it, it shows up in your Deleted Items folder (on the server) as unread. Also, synchronization is not immediate when you update/delete items on your WM5 device.

On the security side, you did not mention on-device encryption. BlackBerry's capable of running the 4.x client have the option of encrypting the locally stored data. This can come in handy when you "wipe" a device, since a wipe does not do much as far as actually erasing (by writing over) your data.

Also, on the security topic, WM5 devices do not wipe any memory cards (SD, miniSD, microSD, etc.) if you do a remote wipe. I think Crossbow fixes this.

Finally, there is the topic of Intranet access. BlackBerry's can communicate through the BES to internal web servers. WM5 devices cannot do something similar. Again, I think Crossbow, Exchange 2007, and the unnamed management server enable this. Sadly, I'm guessing that the management server licensing $$ will add enough to the TCO that it will be very close to BlackBerry/BES cost.