Now you will not have to be worry about make your calls,send sms..and be spyed.
This software promise to encrypt entire GSM data.
Realized on a Q-Tek 2020 Hardware
http://www.caspertech.com/prodotti.php
Sorry if this is a stupid question but, having looked at the web site briefly it seems to me that this will only work between two devices both equiped with the Cryptech software?
unapproachable2kx said:
Now you will not have to be worry about make your calls,send sms..and be spyed.
This software promise to encrypt entire GSM data.
Realized on a Q-Tek 2020 Hardware
http://www.caspertech.com/prodotti.php
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This looks very similar to http://www.cryptophone.nl/
Except that cryptophone is open source, and the CasparTech product uses "proprietary encryption algorithms" - I wonder if these CasparTech guys wrote their application from scratch.
If you don't care about being able to see the source (i.e. if you don't care about backdoors -- remember Crypto A.G.?) you could also use skype, although that uses GPRS rather than a connection directly to another xda2 device with crypto software on in. Depending on the codec's bitrate and your GPRS plan, using GPRS/voip on skype may work out more/less expensive when you use it.
The fine people at http://www.cryptophone.nl/ also offer a windows version for your at-home/work PC or laptop to use with a landline for free, and the source code is right there on their website for all to see. Their product is NOT cheap, but knowing that it's secure should be worth it to those who have the need for it (e.g. big business, politicians, etc.)
(There is no pricing on that Caspartech page, so who knows what it costs..)
The http://www.cryptophone.nl/ people also founded xda-developers.com btw.
A PPC version of speakfreely (google for it, it's cool) would be a Nice Thing To Have.
Hi Guys
Is there a good firewall that we can use with the universal? Do we really need one?
when i browse the web on my Exec i use it over wifi so is that safe, (my home is protected BUT what about the free HOTSPOTS in the city centre <I trust star bucks with my coffee-do I trust them with my internet security?
Would any of you guys use your PDA's webpage to buy something from a website (ebay) or even online banking?
Im not to fused about someone hacking my PDA through my wifi/internet connection, come on the way I look at it, if some one is that good Im sure they have better things to hack then mine! lol
Im more concerned about if I am going to log onto ebay's webpage how secure is my information while its being sent from My PDA browser to there server?
IL appreciate everyone’s thoughts on this!
YES VIJAY that includes you as well,
GUYS KEEP YOUR REPLIES IN RELATION TO THIS THREAD, if you want to talk about your aunty janes cats dogs friends sisters leg, start another thread!)
You don't need one.
Ward said:
You don't need one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
could you explain why, please?
@ WARD
why dont we need one? because you say so? lol
come on mate you can not give a one sentence reply and walk away from this, do you know how long it has taken me to write the post?
unless you a allsinging alldancing knowit all---------, well even if you are, give a better reply then "you dont need one"
or dont post at all.
you dont need one
You don't need a firewall now, because:
a) No tools for the PPC are really available at the moment, and
b) What exactly are they going to do when they hack in?
c) More importantly, you won't FIND any firewalls for Windows Mobile.
But as to the question of how safe is the information being sent to eBay; well, Pocket IE (Internet Explorer Mobile) is based off IE 5 and 6, with the same security levels. So if you access something with that little lock icon on, you're pretty secure.
If not, you're taking the same risk as normal browsing.
OK guys come on give better answers then "you dont need one"
we are not all mind readers,
:?:
breakit down, whywe dont need one?
how safe is your data when its sent from your device?
try to read my intial thread and reply to the points in there,
I am sure that you are not naive to think we dont need one because our networks tell its its safe or because microsoft does,
How many times has microsoft security been compermised?
Networks- remmber t-mobile? when there servers where being hacked (one good thing that came out of that was pairs hiltons EMAILS! along with the secrect service but with parisss its was more of like many online service providers, T-Mobile.com requires users to answer a "secret question" if they forget their passwords. For Hilton's account, the secret question was "What is your favorite pet's name?" By correctly providing the answer, any internet user could change Hilton's password and freely access her account. and her pet dog name is!!! Chihuahua
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/12/hacker_penetrates_t-mobile/ )
@ snorbaard
thanks dude
N2h, you're being rather rude, so I would have expected a lot more "you don't need one" replies by now just to spite you. I'll answer your question first, and then detail why I believe you're being rather rude.
--
What you're asking about isn't really a firewall. A firewall is used to prevent certain communications either coming into a machine, or going out of it. E.g. a firewall could be placed on outbound port 80 to prevent users from browsing 99% of the web, or a firewall can and should be placed on inbound port 139 to stop some older netbios 'attacks'.
What you're really asking about is whether the communication you do via your PocketPC - over wifi - is 'secure' in that others can't access your information. The answer to that isn't a simple yes/no - it will depend on a few things.
The first thing to make sure as that the access point you're using has WEP (Wireless Encryption Protocol) enabled. The bigger the key, the better. This will mean that 'over the air', your information will be encrypted. Anybody who would 'snoop' that information from the air will need a LOT of data, and a reasonably fast machine, to get the WEP key.
The next thing to make sure is that if the information you're sending is rather sensitive, that you send this information to a site which is using SSL. SSL encrypts your data on your PocketPC itself, all the way through the WiFi router/access point, over the internet, bouncing off of satellites - whatever, until it reaches the destination website where the data is decrypted again. The odds of anybody cracking that signal are *very* slim. It can be done, but it takes ages and ages on multiple computers for even the simplest of SSL encryptions. The 'dumb' way to check whether the site uses SSL is to see if the URL starts with "https". The 'proper' way is to check if the padlock icon is 'locked' in PIE (left of the address bar).
The third thing, if you're using e-mail, is to use an e-mail encryption application, such as PGP. I'm not aware if any exist for PocketPC, but I'm sure they do. These basically encrypt your message in a way that it can still be sent by plain e-mail. The recipient then decrypts the message again on their end. Based on the encryption method used and the length of the message, it would take quantum computers to decrypt it to anything meaningful.
--
For those wondering whether you do indeed need a Firewall - no, you don't. You may wish to look into some basic BlueTooth protection if you leave that on a lot, but other than that there are no real intrusion points for a PocketPC that you'd have to be worried about.
Microsoft may turn the PocketPC into some ueberplatform in the future which would make it more vulnerable, or maybe they learned their lesson and they'll keep things fairly secure - who knows.
--
Now then.. as to why you're being rude...
First.. your post - what's with the bold blue text? Do you think it would get people's attention easier? Just makes it more difficult to read.
Second... you address a specific person, vijay555 - who is a very busy person. But even if he wasn't, it's a bit presumptious of you that 1. he would be reading this, 2. he would be interested in replying at all.
Third... you presume that people would go off-topic, in your original post (in large red type, at that). Why not have a bit more faith in fellow man and see what replies roll in, first? Then if people go off-topic, point it out and ask that they try and address the issue you raised in your post.
Fourth... when somebody does answer your post, even if it is a rather short reply, you tell them to either post a better reply, or not reply at all. Don't be surprised if many people will interpret this in a way that will make them not want to reply to any of your posts at all.
--
Edit: and such is the cost of typing long replies - other people reply before you
zeboxxxxxxxxxxxxxx lol
thatsmade me laugh :lol:
thanks mate
FROM ZEBOX (sorryabout the caps hope i dont hurt anyones feeling)
Now then.. as to why you're being rude...
First.. your post - what's with the bold blue text? Do you think it would get people's attention easier? Just makes it more difficult to read.
dude I LIKE USING COLOURS lol
Second... you address a specific person, vijay555 - who is a very busy person. But even if he wasn't, it's a bit presumptious of you that 1. he
would be reading this, 2. he would be interested in replying at all.
tust me he gets around!
Third... you presume that people would go off-topic, in your original post (in large red type, at that). Why not have a bit more faith in fellow man and see what replies roll in, first? Then if people go off-topic, point it out and ask that they try and address the issue you raised in your post.
Fourth... when somebody does answer your post, even if it is a rather short reply, you tell them to either post a better reply, or not reply at all. Don't be surprised if many people will interpret this in a way that will make them not want to reply to any of your posts at all.
all in one, the amount of threads iv read where the converstion has gone off topic----------- so had to make that clear,
andbeing honest Im having a lugh so i dont want anyone to take it personaly if Imake a checky comment,
and zeboxx this ones just for you
You still don't need a firewall for your Pocket PC.
A firewall in the sense I understand it is a filtering application which brackets network access: rejecting unsolicited packet, applying appication based rules and optionally, performing some filtering on incoming content.
You don't need one, because: there is very little need to restrict application access to the network - malicious apps exist, but its so difficult for them to gain a foothold on your PPC without you knowing about it. So on a clean PPC, a firewall does nothing useful. Dropping unsolitcited packets is nice, but your PPC is mobile - not always connected and therefore of extremely low risk of network intrusion - AFAIK, I've never even heard of a case.
Save your money and CPU and carry on. P.S. PPC AntiViruses are similarly useless, don't listen to PR hype.
@@ ward
Ward thanks for that between you and snorbaard my questionshave been answerd
regarding firewalls and website security!
thanks dude
ward, zeobox Suggested that i was rude to you andmay have hurt your feeling , well my apologies hope we can b friends :lol: lol
cheers bud
RE
Quote
"c) More importantly, you won't FIND any firewalls for Windows Mobile."
AIRSCANNER has one, however, its not currently for WM5 yet
Here:-
http://airscanner.com/downloads/firewall/firewall.html
Keep a close watch on AIRSCANNER for the WM5 version though
RE
ZeBoxx
How to protect your PPC when you're surfing at free hotspots?
I believe that the response should be "You don't need a firewall for your WM5 device - yet."
It's very possible that there are vulnerabilities present in WM5 O/S that simply have not been found yet. There may even be vulnerabilities in WM5 that allow people to reset your device remotely, edit and remove information, etc.
Why would there be vulnerabilities in WM5?
Firstly, its made by Microsoft, and Microsoft has a very bad track record when it comes to this type of thing. Secondly, even if all preventions towards vulnerabilities were taken by Microsoft, it's always possible for one smart hacker to link together something that nobody has ever thought about before. Basically, vulnerabilities are always possible.
If there are vulnerabilities in WM5, why havent I heard about it yet?
Currently the number of devices running WM5 are very small. Theyr also very new, and thus hackers havent really begun to try. It only takes one good enough hacker to do it, though.
Therefore I don't think ruling out firewalls as being irrelevant to WM5 devices is the right way to go about it. Currently, theyr not needed, but who knows? In a months time we might all be scrambling for a firewall as some worm runs riot deleting our files..
It would probably be nice to have a firewall available, anyway. 8)
Just thought I would post to point out that when you go online using GPRS most service providers give you a NAT connection which is in practice the same as a firewall. No incoming connections are allowed, you don't have a public IP address.
This is largly because if you had a public IP all the viruses on the net looking for unsecure Windows machines would flood out your GPRS connection and use up all your credit without you doing anything.
chinnybob said:
Just thought I would post to point out that when you go online using GPRS most service providers give you a NAT connection
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true - also, nearly all wireless hotspots will do the same thing, generally decreasing the amount of potential hackers to only other users sharing the same hotspot.
If your device ever gets hacked while using a hotspot, look around for the guy with the laptop trying to look the other way. :twisted:
As I understand it, there's built in facilities for port redirection and monitoring in Windows Mobile already. Whether or not you'd wish to use it for anything is down to a coder.
As everyone is saying, there are two distinct issues I see here:
1. Are your communications secure between PDA and Server?
2. Is your PDA secure to external intrusions?
Question 1 is addressed above. Use appropriate good sense, keep an eye out for SSL and https and always be weary of transmitting anything sensitive over an open channel. Would I use my PDA to buy something over the net? Probably not - I barely trust my PC browser (and I wrote and secured it myself), and although there's little reason to trust PIE less, that's not a high state of confidence. I always half expect to get cheated/identity theft-ed over the net. But use good common sense, reliable traders and be weary of all open connections that you don't control.
Question 2.
Intrusions. Again, as everyone is saying - as of now, there's not an enormous amount of damage that could be done to your PDA even if someone could stomp all over it without your knowledge. Worst case, you need to hard reset, and someone steals all your personal info.
However, there aren't many well known exploits that you need to worry about. But, that probably means that there are exploits known to those who would be interested in you.
However, since you're wifi roaming, it's likely your IP is dynamic. Somebody would have to have an idea of where you are and be particularly interested in finding you on the net to track you down. (although that's easy enough to do if they know your habits. Server logs give a wealth of info for free! I can see many visitors to my website directly from warez sites. If I wanted to backtrace to an ISP, a server or a user, the info is there in front of me)
So, someone can find you on the net. They then need to identify you as using a PDA they can exploit. They have to know exploits. They can then get access to your system. What's the worst that can happen? As everyone says, be weary of carrying very sensitive info on you phone, at least unencrypted. They're small things prone to theft and loss. If you would worry if it was stolen from your hand, don't put it on there, or encrypt it. Doubley so if you're using public wifi.
There are exploits to take advantage of your system. I'm working on stuff that could easily be classified as a trojan, and there is live code, years old, demonstrating the techniques.
Best advice: be careful. Your PDA is naked compared to your PC (which is firewalled, anti virused, and anti-spyed already. right?) Just because no one is interested in looking at your PDA's undies, doesn't mean you should flash them around. Use good sense on all public networks. However, given the hardware limitations of our PDAs, I'm inclined to say, better to leave it unprotected but not at risk (ie not carry highly sensitive info), then have CPU intensive protection that's counterproductive and unlikely to be needed most of the time.
Others would have different priorities. You have to judge what you have at stake.
V
VIJAY thanks for the reply your thoughts are allways much appericated.
when you say you have secured your own browser is it a programme that's available on your site or a 1of thing that you did? someone else advised me that netfront 3.3 (or what ever the latest version is) is more secure then ie any thoughts on that.
thanks
N2h
p.s zeooooooobox guess ur sorry ass was wrong after all.
N2h said:
VIJAY thanks for the reply your thoughts are allways much appericated.
when you say you have secured your own browser is it a programme that's available on your site or a 1of thing that you did? someone else advised me that netfront 3.3 (or what ever the latest version is) is more secure then ie any thoughts on that.
thanks
N2h
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He said quite specifically his PC browser. (i.e. not a browser on his phone)
As someone said earlier, just make sure the little padlock is there. SSL encryption is good enough for most things.
Hi everyone,
I will be a little paranoid over here so don't take it hard on me =)
I've been using a i-mate k-jam for a long time and switched to touch hd on january. Interestingly the biggest similarity and annoyance for me was the softwares pre-installed to download some sort of data over internet and bugging every week to download new signatures/data and bugging even more if you fail to download.
eTrust found out to be useless and I can't really pinpoint why most handheld GPS devices doesn't really require to update this kind of information (Please correct if I'm wrong).
We might assume the transaction is a simple wget/http download which wouldn't carry any other information to the other party that someone from that IP downloaded something. But if there is a handshaking or at least some kind of a http post is inplace, it could be also sending a unique device idea which would let the guys in Taiwan track our devices our a map.
As I said I'm just being paranoid and making almost a conspiracy theory here but still the possibility exists.
So how can we be sure they are not sending any information out?
We can set up a proxy and mirror incoming traffic from a source ip (phones ip) and dump it with wireshark. Then we will need to define the proxy on our phone and click download.
Is there a wireshark/ethereal kind of packet capture software which can run on these devices? It could ease the job.
Reverse engineering the code? Not experienced in that but It should be quite small when the you think the job it supposed to do.
Any comments, thoughts, help, information - greatly appreciated.
BR, Kaya
You can disable Quick GPS if you want because it isn't necessary for the GPS.
It just speeds up the process of finding satellites.
why don't you just use a nokia 3210? that way you should be pretty safe lolol
philocritus said:
why don't you just use a nokia 3210? that way you should be pretty safe lolol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if you leave BT off JK
I've sort of resigned myself to the fact that using a smartphone exposes someone to a lot of security gaps. The best advice is to keep your bluetooth off / in hidden mode, as this is one of the easiest ways to get at your handheld's data. Moving up the paranoia scale, you can use that NoData program to disable your data connection except for when you really need at - that will prevent most third-party programs from dialing home. And if you're really worried about being tracked, I'd recommend just shutting off your phone when you have something private to do.
One of the glaring ommisions from the new platform (which I really like in so many other ways) is the loss of the Internet Connection Sharing application which as a business traveller I found indespensible. Someone please come up with a WM7 app version soon!
Many thanks
SM
yea i so with u.. i will keep my hd2 until some one comes up with a usb tethering app..
Tethering or wifi hotspot from phone is really needed (for security sake when travelling).
Search the thread regarding a diagnosis app in this general thread section...ill post the specific thread link when I have time
Tethering
It's possible, though not as simple as just running an app. There's a write-up at mobilitydigest.com. Search for "windows phone 7 tethers" (forum software won't let me post a direct link).
cuckooznest said:
It's possible, though not as simple as just running an app. There's a write-up at mobilitydigest.com. Search for "windows phone 7 tethers" (forum software won't let me post a direct link).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everybody keeps pointing the OP to the tethering feature via the diagnostic app. While that is great and very useful, it is not what the OP asked for. He cannot "share" his internet via his tethered connection.
While the tether capability uncovered will serve a lot of us in the interim, WP7 really does need a "sharing" or 'local hot spot' creating capability down the road. I am sure that att et all will have issues, but this is 2010 and there are times when in the name of the job or some other instance, you simply have to have a hotspot. Isn't this why we pay over a $100 a month for a plan. Now I am confusing two separate issues. Back to the OP's question. Internet sharing is currently not supported.
I think that is exactly what OP wants. Internet Connection Sharing App on original WM is not a hotspot feature either. It offers data connection to one PC via either USB or Bluetooth.
WP7 has thethering capability built-in IIRC. But it is up to carrier to enable it. And we know all US carriers will disable it because they charge extra for tethering.
AT&T was able to modify and lock down ICS on WM 6.x phones to use a different APN so that you have to pay extra in order to use ICS on those phones. However, such restrictions are easily removed via a few registry hacks.
Apparently Connection Sharing/USB is Available
Check the pocketnow.com website under windows phone for a detailed explanation of how to do it...
http://pocketnow.com/windows-phone/samsung-focus-does-tethering-after-all-on-windows-phone-7
A third party app like this is not possible at the moment I believe. The WP7 SDK currently doesn't have support for sockets (yet) so any network based app are limited to web services only.
I can't connect to VPN through my Note 3, and HTC One, both updated to kitkat.
I have looked around and it seems to be a kitkat bug. VPN is not banned in my country as I can connect through my computer. There are some fixes on net, but they are in a developer language, far from my understanding.
I will provide some links of fixes here: on Phandroid, on VPN Journal. These might be the same ones, but I'm a total newbie in the technical stuff explained here. Can anyone provide a step-by-step version of these fixes, so it is useful for me, ad anyone who has a similiar problem?
Thanks
Jamal Ahmed said:
I can't connect to VPN through my Note 3, and HTC One, both updated to kitkat.
I have looked around and it seems to be a kitkat bug. VPN is not banned in my country as I can connect through my computer. There are some fixes on net, but they are in a developer language, far from my understanding.
I will provide some links of fixes here: on Phandroid, on VPN Journal. These might be the same ones, but I'm a total newbie in the technical stuff explained here. Can anyone provide a step-by-step version of these fixes, so it is useful for me, ad anyone who has a similiar problem?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well in the links above it only states that Google hasn't addressed the issue yet. But there is a workaround for Cisco AnyConnect Enterprise users.
Judging by the way you said that it was written "in developer language, far from my understanding", I assume you aren't familiar with network administration with the Cisco AnyConnect system.
Until Google produces a fix for Android 4.4, VPN administrators may temporarily reduce the maximum segment size for TCP connections on the ASA with the configuration command “sysopt connection tcpmss <mss size>”. The default for this parameter is 1380 bytes. Reduce this value by the difference between the values seen in the ASA logs. In the above example, the difference is 15 bytes; the value should thus be no more than 1365.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is pretty much the step by step, provided that you have a Cisco AnyConnect setup in your Enterprise.