Bluetooth Phones Vulnerable to Snarfing

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39145881,00.htm">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39145881,00.htm</a><br /><br />I thought this would be of interest since a lot of us carry a bluetooth phone to enable mobile wireless access with our PDAs and even laptops. "A serious Bluetooth security vulnerability allows mobile phone users' contact books to be stolen. You've heard of bluejacking - now meet 'bluesnarfing.' A security flaw has been discovered in Bluetooth that lets an attacker download all contact details along with other information from a vulnerable phone, while leaving no trace of the attack. Bluesnarfing is said to affect a number of Sony Ericsson, Ericsson and Nokia handsets, <i>but some models are at greater risk because they invite attack even when in 'invisible mode'</i> -- in which the handset is not supposed to broadcast its identity and should refuse connections from other Bluetooth devices."<br /><br />Nice. :roll: The Nokia 6310, 6310i, 8910 and 8910i models are at greatest risk, so I'm glad my 3650 isn't on that hot list but I still don't feel real safe. <a href="http://www.bluestumbler.org/">There is more detailed information here</a>. I feel a bluetooth rant coming on... :grinning devil:

[popabawa]

Bear in mind Bluesnarfing is still in the 'theoretical' stage and not likely to happen in a real-world environment at the moment.

Iain.

[eustts]

After reading the ZDnet article, it sounds like you would have to modify your BT stack(ie a custom program) to do this "SNARF"

I am sure that this "SNARF" attack is valid in theory, but having to modify the BT stack keeps this out of the hands of the average person.(i would guess)

From ZDnet...

"he can initiate a bluesnarfing attack from his laptop after making a modification to its Bluetooth settings: "It is a standard Bluetooth-enabled laptop and the only special bit is the software I am using in the Bluetooth stack. I have a modified the Bluetooth stack and that enables me to perform this attack," he said."

[Brad Adrian]

So, here's how I use Bluetooth...

I initially pair my phone with my Pocket PC. After the pairing and settings are made, I never set my phone to be "discoverable."

I can't tell from the article whether I'm still vulnerable.

[DubWireless]

there was another article on c|net which has some quotes from Nokia Nokia: Bluetooth flaw gnaws at phone security (http://news.com.com/2100-1009-5155927.html)

this all stems from AL Digitial's Bluetooth Security report (http://www.bluestumbler.org/) published last year, although TDK responded to this report pointing out some shortcomings (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/34139.html) in their claims, although this was also replied to by AL Digital (http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2003/Nov/0106.html)... and there it was left until now...

no technical details have been given, and there are quotes like "if an attacker had physical access to a 7650..." - if an attacker had physical access to a 7650 as the TDK response outlines - they could as easily nick it... or quickly do a standard pairing and set auto connection...

.

[freitasm]

This was news five months ago (I even posted an article on Geekzone then), and then people discarded this as a theoretical vulnerability.

I guess that ZDNET is a little slow in the news and decided to post old things?

[wocket]

I wonder if the Orange E200 is affected.

Mind you the E200 won't talk to my HP iPAQ 2210.

[bjornkeizers]

I'm not the least bit worried. In fact, tomorrow I'm going to buy a bluetooth enabled phone - a Sony-Ericsson T610.

The reason I'm not worried is because

a) I don't keep any numbers in my phone to begin with
b) It's off most of the time anyway
c) The person stealing my phonebook would have to be within a ten meter radius of me, toting a laptop.

[caywen]

I'm not sure this is such a serious problem. I'm all for security, but when security begins to hurt the user experience of a product, it's time to put usability and security on a balance and make a decision. In the case of Bluetooth, setup is often a nightmare because somebody made it adamant that Bluetooth be secure.

I believe Bluetooth should have been 100% non-secure in order to be brain-dead simple to operate. Those people with confidential information can look for application-level encryption to protect their data.

So, I hope these security concerns aren't going to further negatively impact the usability of BT.

My 1/2 cent.

[sesummers]

Can anyone think of a major technology invented in the last 5 years that's a worse botch-job than Bluetooth? I awaited it with such anticipation, and now as far as I'm concerned, it's worthless, nearly useless, and unlikely to ever provide the capabilities I was hoping for it to provide.

[Duncan]

Nice. :roll: The Nokia 6310, 6310i, 8910 and 8910i models are at greatest risk, so I'm glad my 3650 isn't on that hot list but I still don't feel real safe. There is more detailed information here (http://www.bluestumbler.org/). I feel a bluetooth rant coming on... :grinning devil:

Ed,

You really are getting desperate here aren't you? You'll note that this 'security' issue is almost impossible to make use of and would require the user being rather dumb (not to mention it is old, and exagerated, news) - but heaven forbid you should lose another chance to irrationally blame the Bluetooth standard itself...! :roll:

Can anyone think of a major technology invented in the last 5 years that's a worse botch-job than Bluetooth? I awaited it with such anticipation, and now as far as I'm concerned, it's worthless, nearly useless, and unlikely to ever provide the capabilities I was hoping for it to provide.

I can think of many. I can't, however, think of a technology that has been so maligned by people seemingly barely able to understand what it does and what it is for.

Worthless? Rubbish. To say that is to ignore the countless thousands who use it and value it every day.

Nearly useless? To someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence maybe. Since that applies to very few PDA and mobile phone owners then 'useless' is a somewhat meaningless judgement.

Unlikely to ever provide the capabilities you were hoping for it to provide? Then I would suggest that your expectations were inappropriate. Perhaps you were one of those expecting it to behave like WiFi and missing the point? It does everything it is supposed to as a standard - it won't, however, improve your love life, make the tea, add inches to your height etc. so if those were among your expectations...

[freitasm]

Can anyone think of a major technology invented in the last 5 years that's a worse botch-job than Bluetooth? I awaited it with such anticipation, and now as far as I'm concerned, it's worthless, nearly useless, and unlikely to ever provide the capabilities I was hoping for it to provide.

Is it the technology or the short-sighted way that companies implemented it?

[freitasm]

Well said Duncan :mrgreen:

[Ed Hansberry]

Nice. :roll: The Nokia 6310, 6310i, 8910 and 8910i models are at greatest risk, so I'm glad my 3650 isn't on that hot list but I still don't feel real safe. There is more detailed information here (http://www.bluestumbler.org/). I feel a bluetooth rant coming on... :grinning devil:

Ed,

You really are getting desperate here aren't you? You'll note that this 'security' issue is almost impossible to make use of and would require the user being rather dumb (not to mention it is old, and exagerated, news) - but heaven forbid you should lose another chance to irrationally blame the Bluetooth standard itself...! :roll:

Can anyone think of a major technology invented in the last 5 years that's a worse botch-job than Bluetooth? I awaited it with such anticipation, and now as far as I'm concerned, it's worthless, nearly useless, and unlikely to ever provide the capabilities I was hoping for it to provide.

I can think of many. I can't, however, think of a technology that has been so maligned by people seemingly barely able to understand what it does and what it is for.
And THAT speaks volumes about the bluetooth initiative, implementation, marketing, etc. There is a small cadre of BT fans that have a fervor only rivaled by Team OS/2 in fanaticism for the product. The rest of us are giving it the big yawn.

Uhm... did I just type that out loud?

[Iamzim]

Maybe is me, but I don't understand the urgency of this. I have around 90 or so numbers on my SE T610. If someone is willing to go over that much troubl to steal it then please be my guest.

What good is some name and phone number. You can ezly get a few K of them just by looking at white pages.

[Duncan]

And THAT speaks volumes about the bluetooth initiative, implementation, marketing, etc. There is a small cadre of BT fans that have a fervor only rivaled by Team OS/2 in fanaticism for the product. The rest of us are giving it the big yawn.

Ed,

Bluetooth is used by countless millions who far from being 'fanatical' simply find that it works. The 'small cadre' are those few technologically backward (in mobile tech terms) people in your neck of the woods who have a 'fanatical' imperative to dismiss Bluetooth (look - we're sorry that CDMA operators won't offer BT phones - but get over it already...!). Funny how those few Bluetooth nay-sayers have such difficulty coping with the realisation that THEY are in the minority world-wide (yeah, I know BT hasn't taken off so much in the US, but forgive me and the other 6 billion non-US citizens if that doesn't really impact on us! :wink: )

I'm curious - why do you never seem to respond to valid criticism of your anti-BT posts (in this case the somewhat out of date, alarmist and inaccurate nature of the referenced article) but instead concentrate on telling us Bluetooth using majority that we are 'fanatics' because we point out the clear and simple truth that IT WORKSjust fine?!! Just once I'd like to see you offer a solid response with an actual point with regard to Bluetooth (don't get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for your views on many things but with Bluetooth you continue to act like the man walking along with his eyes shut and complaining about the dark...)

Now I KNOW I typed THAT outloud!

[Ed Hansberry]

Just once I'd like to see you offer a solid response with an actual point with regard to Bluetooth (don't get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for your views on many things but with Bluetooth you continue to act like the man walking along with his eyes shut and complaining about the dark...)
I have given numerous real world examples of where it fails over the past few years. If it worked well, there wouldn't be such a list of articles submitted to us on failures.

Go to the search page and type in bluetooth, Ed Hansberry in the name and Front Page Archives. Lots of solid responses in there. I am not going to answer tit for tat "yeah, but's" in this thread because there is always a "yeah, but."

[sesummers]

Nearly useless? To someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence maybe. Since that applies to very few PDA and mobile phone owners then 'useless' is a somewhat meaningless judgement.


Ouch! I criticize a technology, so you respond by insulting me personally. Good form. I'm sure everyone here will agree that you just won the argument. I should just shut up and go away. :roll:

Worthless? Rubbish. To say that is to ignore the countless thousands who use it and value it every day.


Countless thousands? Not even millions? The last stat I saw was 70 million devices shipped. But only 10% of those to the U.S., and the vast majority are bluetooth equipped cell phones. What fraction of those users actually use it? No way to tell, but I'll bet it's not many.

Unlikely to ever provide the capabilities you were hoping for it to provide? Then I would suggest that your expectations were inappropriate. Perhaps you were one of those expecting it to behave like WiFi and missing the point? It does everything it is supposed to as a standard...

My experience with Bluetooth is pretty limited. I've purchased two bluetooth keyboards. The first was Microsoft's. It dropped characters, and worse, dropped the "key up" event and repeated characters. It would go to sleep and not wake up for half a sentence. It was a relief when it stopped working- after only a few months.

The second was a Logitech. We're still using it, and it's not bad- except that it has to be reset every single day- and the reconnect process is anything but automatic.

When Bluetooth was just starting to be hyped, it was touted as a universal cable replacement - kind of like USB without the wires. We were told that the chips would be so inexpensive that it would be cheaper to equip printers, joysticks, mice, keyboards, pocket pc's, cameras, etc, with a bluetooth interface than to provide the physical cable.

Three years later, you can buy keyboards and mice - for $100 more than the wired equivalents. You can get pocket pcs with bluetooth- for $50-$100 more than ones without it. And all the articles I read are talking about how hard it is to get any of this stuff to talk to each other.

My expectations were that at least some of the rat's nest of wires around my PC would go away by now. That hasn't happened. Maybe it still will- USB took longer than most of us expected to really catch on too.

But at least at the moment, the VAST majority of us computer users get no value from it- making it worthless to us. I'm finding it a lame substitute for non-bluetooth wireless keyboards (except for the range, which is why we put up with it in our conference room)- so it's NEARLY useless- to me. And with all the counter-hype about how hard it is to get it all to work, I have little evidence that it will ever replace the cable rat's nest around my computer- the capabilities I was hoping it would provide.

In my opinion, the completeness of the standard, the thoroughness of the process for certifying compatibility, the quality of the documentation and tools necessary for ensuring smooth interoperability between devices (and the skills of the implementors of these things) have all been pretty weak- at least compared to the expectations created by the many companies participating in the effort.

Don't get me wrong- I love the idea, and I hope they fix the problems and achieve the orignal goals. I just don't think they have yet, and I think they should be held to the higher standard of "stuff your mom can use" rather than "stuff that requires technical competence".

Sorry for the huge post, but I don't respond well to being called "someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence." I'd rather prove you wrong than reply by calling you "someone lacking even (very) basic debating skills." :wink:

[freitasm]

Just once I'd like to see you offer a solid response with an actual point with regard to Bluetooth (don't get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for your views on many things but with Bluetooth you continue to act like the man walking along with his eyes shut and complaining about the dark...)
I have given numerous real world examples of where it fails over the past few years. If it worked well, there wouldn't be such a list of articles submitted to us on failures.

Go to the search page and type in bluetooth, Ed Hansberry in the name and Front Page Archives. Lots of solid responses in there. I am not going to answer tit for tat "yeah, but's" in this thread because there is always a "yeah, but."

This is one interesting thing. I don't post on Geekzone e-mails that I receive from users that read our Bluetooth Guides and give me good feed back. Instead what you see is only the forum postings of people asking for help. Most of the times because of a configuration problem, not a technology problem.

The Bluetooth Guides were read by more than 500,000 users already, so I can say that the small number of people asking for help (at least in our forums) says it all: it's only a very small portion of users that have problems.

We only hear about the bad experiences, and I agree with Duncan. It simply works.

[ctmagnus]

I agree with Duncan. It simply works.

I concur. I've had two bad experiences with it so far (around five months), and they both involved third-party apps.

[rfsjr]

I am one of those users with a SE T616 and I use BT everyday with my Pocket PC and my BT Headset (one, a Jabra 250, and two, a SE H35H). I use Connect2Internet Pro and I have no problems with BT in this manner of use.

I do think that BT has been given a lot of "speak" as to how it would be used with the Desktop, and it really has not been what we would like. I think the technology has a bit of development before desktop usage gets big. And just like WIFI, it does take a little more than general knowledge to work it. Give it time, and introduce BT products which fit our needs.

And count me in with the users who want to use BT to the max. Oh, and I am an American. I've been trying to understand why the USA continues to be so far behind with respect product offerings with BT. Europe, Australia, Taiwan, Japan all have big usage numbers with respect to BT.
What are the manufacturers afraid of?

As far as being BT snarfed, I can't figure for the life of me why anyone would do this. There is essentially nothing to gain and as noted, would be rather difficult to do physically. I'm sure some will do it to prove a theory. As for my own use, I will continue to use my PPC for contacts, email, etc.
It's too easy when used with the software I mention above...Connect2Internet Pro. :| :!:

Duncan>>I appreciate your positive views on BT.

tigerdaddyjr :|

[iPaqDude]

I agree with Duncan. It simply works.

I concur. I've had two bad experiences with it so far (around five months), and they both involved third-party apps.

And I also concur. I have a T68, Nokia 3650, my h3650 with a BT CF card, my h2215 and my laptop with a BT dongle, and a Jabra BT headset - I have had zero, zip, nada, zilch issues with setting these up and using them on an almost daily basis. And I don't count myself as just being lucky that I managed to get it to work.

I have had more issues just setting up 802.11b on my h2215! :(

True, BT is not without it's issues, but I for one think it is a technology that will be with us for awhile. :!:

[SassKwatch]

The Bluetooth Guides were read by more than 500,000 users already, so I can say that the small number of people asking for help (at least in our forums) says it all: it's only a very small portion of users that have problems.
There's a logic fallacy there. Because only a few ask for help does not *necessarily* mean everyone is using it without problem. It could be that 490k of those readers read the guide and never gave BT another look.

Your premise is similar to those that suggest because x million BT equipped devices have been sold that everyone who bought such a device is actually using the tech. It *could* be the case, but just because it's sold doesn't mean it's being used.

[freitasm]

The Bluetooth Guides were read by more than 500,000 users already, so I can say that the small number of people asking for help (at least in our forums) says it all: it's only a very small portion of users that have problems.
There's a logic fallacy there. Because only a few ask for help does not *necessarily* mean everyone is using it without problem. It could be that 490k of those readers read the guide and never gave BT another look.

Your premise is similar to those that suggest because x million BT equipped devices have been sold that everyone who bought such a device is actually using the tech. It *could* be the case, but just because it's sold doesn't mean it's being used.

Point take, but I consider the number of e-mails from people saying "thanks", plus the number of posts in our forums from people saying "it works now" is for me a good indication of success/failure rates.

As I said, most of the problems were related to configuration - mostly on the Windows side. Pocket PC, Symbian Smartphones and Palm seem to be working ok...

[DerekTheGeek]

1) Good point Duncan and well said!

2) Bluetooth works and works well at that. When manufacturers deviate from the specifications for whatever stupid reason (i.g Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft...) it's then that you get incompatabilities. Don't blame the standard. I use a T616, Jabra BT 2000, and an iPaq 4155 and all works great. I use it as a cable replacement technology. That is what it is designed for.

Bluetooth really gets a bad rap from the editors of this group and one that is entirely undeserving. Perhaps the editors should take a closer look at how they evaluate products and technologies.


- Derek

[Janak Parekh]

Bluetooth really gets a bad rap from the editors of this group and one that is entirely undeserving. Perhaps the editors should take a closer look at how they evaluate products and technologies.
Not uniformly. We're a opinion site, and have rather different opinions on this issue. I personally have been happy with my Bluetooth experiences, even with my ancient 3870. I don't use Bluetooth much now because of Verizon's stupidity, but I do think that we've forgotten how much of a hassle 802.11b used to be back in the day, and that Bluetooth's nearly overcome its teething problems in a remarkably short time period given the scope of the technology. It's just that my positive posts on the subject don't generate much discussion. :razzing:

Nevertheless, it does have teething problems and it's not a terrible idea to call it on those. My personal desire is that the SIG develops a more stringent certification process so that we don't get subpar Bluetooth implementations in the mass market.

--janak

[freitasm]

It's just that my positive posts on the subject don't generate much discussion. :razzing:

My point before: people don't discuss or report good experiences, only bad ones. Unless pressed by the folks spreading the bad info.

[SassKwatch]

Bluetooth works and works well at that. When manufacturers deviate from the specifications for whatever stupid reason (i.g Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft...) it's then that you get incompatabilities. Don't blame the standard.
Don't think I've seen anyone blame 'the standard' specifically. The problem is that you can't really separate the standard from the implementation. It's the full package (standard and implementation) that make up what people think of as 'Bluetooth'....or 'WiFi'....or whatever.

Personally, my 'issue' with BT has less to do with functionality than it does with the prices of BT devices. IMO, they need to come ~ 33% overall to be of real 'value'.

[disconnected]

My Bluetooth experiences have been mostly positive, and it's been far from worthless for me.

I'm using a Fortuna GPSmart GPS receiver and a t608 phone from Sprint (yeah, finally!). The GPS was simple to set up, even for me, and I managed to set up the phone connection with a little help from Sprintpcsinfo. I've been very happy with both.

[freitasm]

Bluetooth works and works well at that. When manufacturers deviate from the specifications for whatever stupid reason (i.g Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft...) it's then that you get incompatabilities. Don't blame the standard.
Don't think I've seen anyone blame 'the standard' specifically. The problem is that you can't really separate the standard from the implementation. It's the full package (standard and implementation) that make up what people think of as 'Bluetooth'....or 'WiFi'....or whatever.

Personally, my 'issue' with BT has less to do with functionality than it does with the prices of BT devices. IMO, they need to come ~ 33% overall to be of real 'value'.

True... For the Defenders of Wi-Fi Pride and Bluetooth Wanna Be Killers reading this, have a look at this "Based on testing of more than 1,000 products over several IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 802.11 standards, products that are prepared for Wi-Fi certification testing fail 25-30% of the time or more depending on the technology being tested. (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=2146)

Same with Bluetooth. For instance I've seen products in stores within boxes with the Bluetooth word but without the logo or the (R). Very dodgy...

PS: Dodgy (Britain, Australia, and N.Z): informal, risky, uncertain or unreliable; tricky

[Janak Parekh]

True... For the Defenders of Wi-Fi Pride and Bluetooth Wanna Be Killers reading this, have a look at this "Based on testing of more than 1,000 products over several IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 802.11 standards, products that are prepared for Wi-Fi certification testing fail 25-30% of the time or more depending on the technology being tested. (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=2146)
Right - except does the BT SIG do the same stringent testing? If not, they should.

--janak

[sesummers]

The Bluetooth Guides were read by more than 500,000 users already, so I can say that the small number of people asking for help (at least in our forums) says it all: it's only a very small portion of users that have problems.

Stop and read what you just said- MORE THAN A HALF MILLION PEOPLE have searched on the internet for this information on how to get bluetooth stuff working. That proves it "just works"? It's EXCELLENT That the the majority of users find the info they need and get it all working. But how many users have to seek out "the USB Cable Guides" or "The extension cord Guides" on the internet?

I'm not disputing that Bluetooth can be made to work. I'm saying that the ratio of actual ease of use to hyped ease of use is a number much smaller than 1, and needs to get much closer to 1 before I would consider deploying it to my customer base.

[freitasm]

True... For the Defenders of Wi-Fi Pride and Bluetooth Wanna Be Killers reading this, have a look at this "Based on testing of more than 1,000 products over several IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 802.11 standards, products that are prepared for Wi-Fi certification testing fail 25-30% of the time or more depending on the technology being tested. (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=2146)
Right - except does the BT SIG do the same stringent testing? If not, they should.

--janak

They do testing. But what about the fake/unlicenced products that go to the market with a stamp "Bluetooth" without going through these? Remember the articles about fake Bluetooth products six months ago?

[freitasm]

The Bluetooth Guides were read by more than 500,000 users already, so I can say that the small number of people asking for help (at least in our forums) says it all: it's only a very small portion of users that have problems.

Stop and read what you just said- MORE THAN A HALF MILLION PEOPLE have searched on the internet for this information on how to get bluetooth stuff working. That proves it "just works"? It's EXCELLENT That the the majority of users find the info they need and get it all working. But how many users have to seek out "the USB Cable Guides" or "The extension cord Guides" on the internet?

I'm not disputing that Bluetooth can be made to work. I'm saying that the ratio of actual ease of use to hyped ease of use is a number much smaller than 1, and needs to get much closer to 1 before I would consider deploying it to my customer base.

I agree it's not easy to use - in some situations. Most of the people want to use this as a ethernet cable replacement. Their problem is not with Bluetooth, but with Windows. Users can't understand why ICS requires a specific 192.168.0.1 address. They don't understand why there's a conflict if this address is used by their ADSL router. Is this a Bluetooth problem? Nope, ICS it's a OS problem.

Then came XP Bridge. Brilliant solution, but how many users can open Network properties, highlight two adapters and click "Bridge"? Again, Bluetooth problem? Nope.

Try using Bluetooth from an iPAQ to a mobile phone. Easy:

1) turn BT on and discoverable on the phone
2) from your iPAQ tap Connect to Internet via cellphone
3) Enter same pairing PIN in both devices
4) enter the dial up number
5) surf

Hard? Can't be easier than this. But people still struggle to understand.

Very funny suggestion for new guides :lol:

[Janak Parekh]

But how many users have to seek out "the USB Cable Guides" or "The extension cord Guides" on the internet?
Actually, people frequently seek out USB advice. A lot of devices have issues connecting to hubs, etc. Ditto for 802.11b -- I've done a lot of consulting over the years and 802.11b devices still aren't intuitive enough for the average end-user. All of these technologies can, and should, continue to improve.

--janak

[disconnected]

I've had lots of USB problems. I have XP home, which might be my first problem, but it always seems to have conflicts; my printer apparently has to be plugged into a particular USB port, and when I plug in a card reader, my CD drive disappears. I'm sure there are ways around this, but I thought the point of USB was that you could just plug stuff in and it would work.

[ctmagnus]

when I plug in a card reader, my CD drive disappears.

This sounds to me like a case of two devices being assigned the same drive letter. Is your CD drive a USB model, or internal? Of course, if this has been happening since the machine arrived from the factory it sounds like an OEM issue. There's something to be said for "roll your own" setups!

Anyways, back to BT issues. :nonono:

[freitasm]

when I plug in a card reader, my CD drive disappears.

This sounds to me like a case of two devices being assigned the same drive letter. Is your CD drive a USB model, or internal? Of course, if this has been happening since the machine arrived from the factory it sounds like an OEM issue. There's something to be said for "roll your own" setups!

Anyways, back to BT issues. :nonono:

I think this is on topic. It shows how technologies have flaws and not because of the technology itself, but because of the implementation.

[DubWireless]

after Nokia responded to the original Al Digital report now Sony Ericsson respond (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39146123,00.htm) - at least a firmware update appears to solve issues (althogh the article dones't specify which handset(s) the quoted Firmware revision refers to)

when they mention how to find the firmware version - when the writer says "mouse" :roll: he means joystick :wink: (left and right)


.

[sesummers]

Just because my personal experience with bluetooth has been poor, and my experience with USB has been good, doesn't prove anything if my experience isn't typical, and it sounds like it isn't. And of course, other people's good experiences aren't likely to be reported on the news sites - good news is no news, I suppose.

I still contend that the hype hasn't been matched by reality, but that's probably more the unrealistic nature of the hype, than the performance of the bluetooth industry being relatively poor. Realistically, almost NONE of our computer technology is anywhere near as easy to use as it needs to become. But it appears that my statement about bluetooth being especially weak is not (or perhaps no longer?) true.

I'll need to re-evaluate this the next time I'm in the market for a new PocketPC.

[Duncan]

Nearly useless? To someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence maybe. Since that applies to very few PDA and mobile phone owners then 'useless' is a somewhat meaningless judgement.


Ouch! I criticize a technology, so you respond by insulting me personally. Good form. I'm sure everyone here will agree that you just won the argument. I should just shut up and go away. :roll:

>>>> What personal insult? There is no insult aimed at you in the above. I made a statement about people who can't use Bluetooth based on personal experience. I didn't ask or intend those comments to be aimed at you (by definition - if you own a PDA you are not technically incompetent). I am somewhat amused that you saw it as personal insult though! :lol:

Worthless? Rubbish. To say that is to ignore the countless thousands who use it and value it every day.


Countless thousands? Not even millions? The last stat I saw was 70 million devices shipped. But only 10% of those to the U.S., and the vast majority are bluetooth equipped cell phones. What fraction of those users actually use it? No way to tell, but I'll bet it's not many.

>>>> I'll take that bet! Last time I checked 'countless thousands' was a perfectly normal shorthand for 'am awful lot of people'. I'll revise it to countless millions if you like!

Unlikely to ever provide the capabilities you were hoping for it to provide? Then I would suggest that your expectations were inappropriate. Perhaps you were one of those expecting it to behave like WiFi and missing the point? It does everything it is supposed to as a standard...

My experience with Bluetooth is pretty limited.

>>>> and there's the rub. Two purchases - one which works well and one from a company that has been roundly criticised for crippling the technology. You'll forgive me if I find the rest of of your observations just a little lacking in the light of your lack of experiential knowledge - especially as a number of your points consist of regional bias, exaggeration and general mismatched expectations.

Sorry for the huge post, but I don't respond well to being called "someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence." I'd rather prove you wrong than reply by calling you "someone lacking even (very) basic debating skills." :wink:

Ah - but I didn't do anything of the sort. I can't take responsibility for you deciding that I did!

[Duncan]

Just once I'd like to see you offer a solid response with an actual point with regard to Bluetooth (don't get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for your views on many things but with Bluetooth you continue to act like the man walking along with his eyes shut and complaining about the dark...)
I have given numerous real world examples of where it fails over the past few years. If it worked well, there wouldn't be such a list of articles submitted to us on failures.

Go to the search page and type in bluetooth, Ed Hansberry in the name and Front Page Archives. Lots of solid responses in there. I am not going to answer tit for tat "yeah, but's" in this thread because there is always a "yeah, but."

Which you never acknowledge. You jump on Bluetooth at every point and any time an alternative point is made, often backed up with personal experience and facts and figures, you respond not by arguing the facts but with snide comments (or is labelling someone a fanatic, who points out that your source article is way off beam, your definition of a sold response?). I HAVE read all your posts on Bluetooth Ed - and I have seen precious little in the way of solid response from you. Your 'real world examples' have been unfairly weighted towards either pretty old tech or implementations that are acknowledged to be especially poor. (hey - I can prove how rubbish televisions are by doing the same thing you know...!). This has been pointed out to you before and yet still you do it. I'm not suggesting any dishonesty but I am suggesting that your blinkers are so fixed in place that you can only look for the worst in BT tech and you screen out the worst. Why acknowledge the brilliance of a T610 or a Logitech or an iPAQ 3970 - if you can attack a Nokia, a Microsoft and an iPAQ 3870?

There are those who feel that Blueooth is not as good as it should be - fair enough they may well be right. There are those who feel that it will never be for them - fair enough. Then there are those who seem to have a NEED to denigrate Bluetooth at every opportunity....

Who's the fanatic again???

[sesummers]

[quote=Duncan]Nearly useless? To someone lacking even (very) basic technical competence maybe.
>>>> What personal insult? There is no insult aimed at you in the above. I made a statement about people who can't use Bluetooth based on personal experience. I didn't ask or intend those comments to be aimed at you (by definition - if you own a PDA you are not technically incompetent). I am somewhat amused that you saw it as personal insult though! :lol:

I think you can see why I could have taken that personally (Not EVERYONE with a PDA is NOT technically incompetent, although I suspect most of us who frequent this site don't fit that description.) But I'll take you at your word that you didn't intend it that way, and in turn apologize for implying that you did.

As you may have seen in a post above this, I've already conceded that my impression of Bluetooth's failure as a product (NOT technology) was biased by two (only) personal experiences reinforced by predominantly negative articles (the kind reporters generally like to write). Since two experiences isn't a statistically valid sample (margin of error for a sample size of two is what- about +/- 98%? I don't remember - my last statistics class was more than 20 years ago.)

Anyway, thanks for the clarification and the strong arguments for taking Bluetooth off my "written off" list. I do have a question though- I've read in many places that Bluetooth and 802.11b don't get along very well, because they're on the same frequency. Yet I've seen PocketPCs with both. Do these units with both activate only one or the other at any one time, or can they, contrary to those articles, co-exist?

The reason I'm asking is that our Point of Sale product can use Symbol's industrial strngth PocketPC as one of its terminal options. We also supply a portable printer with it that is also WiFi equipped, so that there doesn't need to be a wire between the handheld terminal and the printer strapped on the user's belt.

We originally wanted to be able to use a bluetooth based printer rather than the WiFi one, to reduce power requirements and eliminate the problem where the printer and the symbol PocketPC have slightly different ranges, so the terminal works but the printer doesn't. But when our research indicated that WiFi and Bluetooth don't get along, we abandoned that search.

If you know for a fact that this can work, we may re-open that investigation. We're not particularly happy with the printer we're using anyway.

Thanks.

[freitasm]

We originally wanted to be able to use a bluetooth based printer rather than the WiFi one, to reduce power requirements and eliminate the problem where the printer and the symbol PocketPC have slightly different ranges, so the terminal works but the printer doesn't. But when our research indicated that WiFi and Bluetooth don't get along, we abandoned that search.

If you know for a fact that this can work, we may re-open that investigation. We're not particularly happy with the printer we're using anyway.

Thanks.

Interesting... I was in a house with a wi-fi AP, three laptops with wi-fi, one of them with Bluetooth. I was copying images from a SD card over Bluetooth to this laptop and all of them were happy in wireless mode. No problems at all.

Then a phone call came in on the cordless phone. Guess what? The wi-fi network stopped working during the whole phone call, but the Bluetooth file transfer continued without a problem.

To my knowledge the Bluetooth and wi-fi didn't cause problems to each other in that house. Dell AP, two Dell laptops, a HP laptop and a h4350.