 | reply to darcilicious
Re: [iPhone] 3.1 breaks Exchange Sync Maybe I am over-reacting a bit. It's barely been 24 hours since the update was released and I should at least give Apple a chance to respond to the issue.
If a reasonable solution can be implemented then great. I would be totally amicable to some form of settlement that would either allow me to get out of my contract without penalty or upgrade to a 3GS for free or at a reduced price. I am a reasonable person. I have been using my current iPhone for almost 10 months and it wouldn't be fair for me to demand a "free iPhone 3GS". Perhaps Apple could have some sort of "Exchange for Exchange (i.e. MS Exchange)" program. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by godlikesme :
Maybe I am over-reacting a bit. It's barely been 24 hours since the update was released and I should at least give Apple a chance to respond to the issue.
If a reasonable solution can be implemented then great. I would be totally amicable to some form of settlement that would either allow me to get out of my contract without penalty or upgrade to a 3GS for free or at a reduced price. I am a reasonable person. I have been using my current iPhone for almost 10 months and it wouldn't be fair for me to demand a "free iPhone 3GS". Perhaps Apple could have some sort of "Exchange for Exchange (i.e. MS Exchange)" program. Give it some time. But I would expect that your forms of settlement would come around once hell freezes over. -- "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | reply to godlikesme Exchange 2007 SP1 was released in May of 2008, you bought your iPhone 3G in November of 2008. It is not Apple's fault you didn't research this issue before buying one. You can disable forced encryption and your phone will work fine, so this is a non-issue. I know for Windows Mobile phones, you can still enable encryption on the device itself. It's likely you could even create two different Activesync Policies on your Exchange Server, one specifically for your iPhone devices that doesn't force encryption and another for other mobile devices that does force it.
I'd like to see Apple release 3.1.1 that reverted to ignoring the setting, but that is the most I would expect to see them offer. |
|
 | I have no control over my Exchange server. I work for a company with like 30,000 employees.
Let's go with the argument that I didn't do my research. However, enforcing hardware encryption was the approach Apple should have taken all along. It would have removed any doubt as to whether or not a customer's MS Exchange servers required it. I would have tried to access my email and received the message I am getting now and known right there and then that the device was not compatible. That would have given me a fair chance to decide whether or not I still wanted to make the purchase. That would have been the right thing to do. Could my IT department have done more research? Perhaps. Could Apple have been more transparent regarding the lack of hardware encryption and it's long-term ramifications? Definitely.
Just to be clear, I could live with a 3.1.2 update that didn't require hardware encryption.
By the way, it's nice to be able to have an intelligent discussion with people and have different opinions without getting flamed like I often see people react on other message boards. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | I agree it was irresponsible of Apple to ignore the setting until now and as I stated earlier, I was under the assumption it WAS honoring the setting. However, I didn't seek a definitive answer when I bought my iPhone, so I hold myself, not Apple, responsible.
Could Apple have been clearer that it didn't support encryption? Absolutely. Do I fault them or think in the grand scheme of things they are ultimately responsible for it? I don't. The information was out there, I just chose not to look for it, so shame on me. |
|
 | reply to Matt said by Matt:Exchange 2007 SP1 was released in May of 2008, you bought your iPhone 3G in November of 2008. It is not Apple's fault you didn't research this issue before buying one. What you seem to be failing to realize here is that prior to the 3.1 patch your iPhone was reporting to Exchange that id had Hardware Encryption when it did not. In other words, it was lying! It was tricking Exchange so it would allow data the data owner had decided needed to be encrypted at rest to be downloaded and stored without hardware encryption.
That my friend IS cause for a Lawsuit. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium join:2003-02-06 Onion, NJ | said by ChiefTom :said by Matt:Exchange 2007 SP1 was released in May of 2008, you bought your iPhone 3G in November of 2008. It is not Apple's fault you didn't research this issue before buying one. What you seem to be failing to realize here is that prior to the 3.1 patch your iPhone was reporting to Exchange that id had Hardware Encryption when it did not. In other words, it was lying! It was tricking Exchange so it would allow data the data owner had decided needed to be encrypted at rest to be downloaded and stored without hardware encryption. That my friend IS cause for a Lawsuit. How you figure? -- standard disclaimers apply. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | reply to ChiefTom said by ChiefTom :said by Matt:Exchange 2007 SP1 was released in May of 2008, you bought your iPhone 3G in November of 2008. It is not Apple's fault you didn't research this issue before buying one. What you seem to be failing to realize here is that prior to the 3.1 patch your iPhone was reporting to Exchange that id had Hardware Encryption when it did not. In other words, it was lying! It was tricking Exchange so it would allow data the data owner had decided needed to be encrypted at rest to be downloaded and stored without hardware encryption. That my friend IS cause for a Lawsuit. No, it wasn't reporting anything to the Exchange server. It simply ignored the policy setting sent to it by Exchange. |
|
 | said by Matt No, it wasn't reporting anything to the Exchange server. It simply ignored the policy setting sent to it by Exchange.[/bquote :That is not what was happening but, even if it was, that makes it ok???? The Data Owner says don't connect unless you have Hardware encryption and Apple ignored the data owners requirement. That is still a LawSuit. Hea, how about you send me your credit card number... Its ok, I promise to encrypt it so no one can get it if my computer is stolen. The data exchange between the Exchange Server and the iPhone went like this... iPhone: I have a user that wants to log in. Exchange says: Do you have hardware encryption? iPhone says: Yes (I really don't but I am say yes anyway) Exchange says: ok, give me the user's credentials... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Chief, I don't think you understand how Activesync policies work. The policy is sent to the device, but it's completely up to the device whether to honor and apply those settings or not. If anything is communicated back, it's simply that the policy was received successfully. The iPhone hasn't been "lying" to the Exchange server in any way, which is why people are in an uproar.
»technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr···84.aspx# »msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/···551.aspx
Note the requirement that for all those policies to be applied, the device must support Activesync 12.1. If the device doesn't support a 12.1 requirement that it doesn't know about (as is the case with the iPhone) it continues to function but it just ignores that policy setting. My guess is that Windows Mobile 5 devices also continue to function normally yet don't support encryption or any of the new Activesync 12.1 policies either. |
|
 | Matt,
Thanks forthe referance links.
In the first referance in the middle of the page is the following
Require Device Encryption This setting specifies whether device encryption is required. If set to $true, the device must be able to support and implement encryption to synchronize with the server.
This means to me that unless the device has can support encryption, it can not synchronize.
It has been this way since mid 2008.
If Encryption was required, why was the device able to sync when this policy say no. |
|
 bbarreraPremium,MVM join:2000-10-23 Sacramento, CA kudos:1 Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
| said by ChiefTom :
This means to me that unless the device has can support encryption, it can not synchronize. It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matters how Microsoft designed the Exchange ActiveSync protocol. One of the protocol's weak links is that mobile devices can ignore policies set on the server, full stop.
That means older Windows Mobile devices may connect to Exchange 2007 SP1 servers and ignore the policy settings. »technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr···129.aspx
It means Nokia, Palm, Apple and anyone else that has licensed Exchange ActiveSync can pick and choose which policies are enforced on the device. It means that if you want to limit access and control the security policies, the Exchange ActiveSync protocol will force you down another path to gain control over the mobile device. |
|
 Gmud join:2009-09-16 Beverly Hills, CA | As a user, not an admin, is there an easy way I can check whether or not my Exchange server requires encryption before I choose to upgrade to 3.1? Of course this won't help me if there is a policy change in the future... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | reply to ChiefTom said by ChiefTom :
Matt,
Thanks forthe referance links.
In the first referance in the middle of the page is the following
Require Device Encryption This setting specifies whether device encryption is required. If set to $true, the device must be able to support and implement encryption to synchronize with the server.
This means to me that unless the device has can support encryption, it can not synchronize.
It has been this way since mid 2008.
If Encryption was required, why was the device able to sync when this policy say no. Because the iPhone's version of Activesync had no idea about that requirement. The requirement wasn't introduced until Exchange 2007 SP1, so the iPhone (or any other device) would have to run a version of Activesync updated or released after the release of SP1 to honor it. |
|
 | Just thought you guys might be interested in knowning that MS Exchange Server 2007 SP1 was not released in May 2008 but in November 2007 which was a full 8 months prior to the release of the original iPhone 3G. That gave Apple MORE than enough time to test compatibility with MS Exchange 2007 SP1. This is TOTALLY Apple's fault and I have already contacted an attorney to start preliminary discussions about a possible class action lawsuit. If anyone else is interested in filing please let me know and I will start a listserv. |
|

approval from: Matt 
| reply to Matt Here is the link to the original Exchange Server 2007 SP1 download page.
»www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta···ylang=en |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Good luck with your lawsuit. |
|
 | reply to godlikesme @godslikeme...
Dude. I've been reading your posts across various forums. I can somewhat understand your frustration about being led to believe the phone did something it apparently doesn't do, but seriously...
A lawsuit? ARE YOU KIDDING???
Tell your Exchange Admin to turn off the policy setting to require encryption. Job done.
Or, sell your phone on Craigslist and buy a Blackberry. Job done. That's cheaper than a lawsuit.
You think Apple will give you money because you can't get your email?
How about having your work mail forwarded to Gmail and access it there?
You have got no grounds for a lawsuit, it's frivolous at best. So what, you can't get your work email on your phone. Too bad. If your company switch to Lotus Notes, or Sendmail, or move to some other system, will you blame Apple then too?
You can't get your own way, so you sue. It's (re)actions like this that give America the "ambulance chaser" and "screw everyone for cash" labels the rest of the world think about you/us. Sorry to say it, but it's true. Just accept the fact that your toy has been taken away and now you need to decide whether to deal with it, or just get a new toy. |
|
 | With all do respect, I can tell by your post that you don't exactly know what it's like to work in a real corporate environment. I work for a goverment contractor. Our clients include agencies like the FBI, DHS, DOJ etc. All of our email communication must be secure. My team all has security clearance and I would get fired and possibly sent to prison if I forwarded my work email to a gmail account. Not everyone lives in a world of "Facebook and Twitter". Some of us do important things that really matter.
Another thing, and for the last freaking time...
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO EXPECT COMPANIES TO TURN OFF ENCRYPTION!!!
Having my company relax their security settings is not an option and shouldn't have to be! Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Apple marketed a product as being compatible with MS Exchange "touting" their ability to run with the likes of RIM in the corporate market and it looks like they were a bit too early coming out of the gate. They need to own up to it just like Microsoft did with all of the failed Xbox 360 red-ring-of-death issues. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | godlikesme, if that is the case then your option would be to upgrade to the 3GS or another handset. |
|