ZachL replied to Armand R.
26-Jan-10 01:37 PM

Hello Armand,
That scenario is not really supported for a couple reasons. The main reason
we did not support remote firmware update was because it would nearly double
the size of memory required. This is because TinyBooter and the CLR are two
different applications (they do not share libraries). And since the network
stack is one of the largest components it would make this unfeasible.
And the second reason for not allowing remote updates, is that we did not
have a good enough security model to allow remote updates. Currently
Tinybooter relies on a signature hash of the image which is not checked until
the old image is replaced by the new one (again for memory reasons). This is
acceptable if you have to have a direct connection because you own the device
already. However, for remote devices it is not because anyone could wipe out
the original image.
We had planned for adding remote firmware updates in the future, but I am
not sure where it falls on the priority list at this point. I believe a few
other customers have either created their own installers or ported .Net MF to
an OS that supported this feature already. That could also be an option for
you.
Thanks,
Zach