More M$ BS

Message

Dewbie · #21 Post by **Dewbie** » Wed 20 Jun 2012, 01:49

Here's part of what's happening, at least with PlanMaker reading the Excel spreadsheets I mentioned before:
SoftMaker / PlanMaker apparently converts dates to European style, with day of month shown first (which makes sense, since they're based in Germany).

Example: January 5, 2012
In U.S.: 1/5/2012
In Europe: 5/1/2012

ICPUG · #22 Post by **ICPUG** » Wed 20 Jun 2012, 12:15

disciple wrote: It would be nice to actually see some reports about some invalid Office files that actually were malware, and see what they did. I always thought that Office "viruses" were just written as VBA macros.

I googled 'malware office documents'

http://2009.hack.lu/archive/2009/New%20 ... alysis.pdf

Although presentation slides this gives a very nice overview of the problem. One slide in particular, No.8, shows how malware hides between the structures of a 'normal' office file.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1166125 ... ility.html

talks about malware that inflicted Mac users via Office files.

http://zeltser.com/reverse-malware/anal ... ments.html

gives a look at the tools out there for Office file analysis.

I thinks these links show that there is a malware problem - not just through vb macros - and a lot of work has been going on out there which we (and probably Office competitors) do not know about.

Now. in return, it would be nice to have some evidence that the MS file analyzer was introduced specifically to put competitor products in a bad light.

Actually, I think we all have more important things to worry about - like the lock down of the UEFI mechanism that MS are demanding on ARM based devices.

Dewbie · #23 Post by **Dewbie** » Thu 21 Jun 2012, 01:40

ICPUG wrote:

it would be nice to have some evidence that the MS file analyzer was introduced specifically to put competitor products in a bad light.

To do that, one would have to prove intent.
In court cases, that's an often insurmountable burden.
Without a leaked internal memo, for example, how is this even possible?

So then what?
Evaluate Microsoft's actions based on how they've behaved in the past.
(which has many examples of duplicitous behavior)

disciple · #24 Post by **disciple** » Thu 21 Jun 2012, 02:24

More importantly, is there any evidence that the "analyzer" actually works?
When the Tibetan activists open the files the Chinese government sends them, do they get a warning message?

<sorry for no link but I do not know how to create it when there is spaces in the link - denoted by <sp>>

I don't think there's such thing as a url with a space in it. Whatever browser you are using is deceiving you. What is it? The latest Firefox?
If you were using a sensible browser you would see the actual url
http://2009.hack.lu/archive/2009/New%20 ... alysis.pdf

RetroTechGuy · #25 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Thu 21 Jun 2012, 03:02

Dewbie wrote:ICPUG wrote:
it would be nice to have some evidence that the MS file analyzer was introduced specifically to put competitor products in a bad light.

To do that, one would have to prove intent.
In court cases, that's an often insurmountable burden.
Without a leaked internal memo, for example, how is this even possible?

So then what?
Evaluate Microsoft's actions based on how they've behaved in the past.
(which has many examples of duplicitous behavior)

Though it would be fun to get them to admit that it was not a malicious act, but simply incompetence...

ICPUG · #26 Post by **ICPUG** » Thu 21 Jun 2012, 11:57

disciple wrote:
<sorry for no link but I do not know how to create it when there is spaces in the link - denoted by <sp>>
I don't think there's such thing as a url with a space in it. Whatever browser you are using is deceiving you. What is it? The latest Firefox?
If you were using a sensible browser you would see the actual url
http://2009.hack.lu/archive/2009/New%20 ... alysis.pdf

I have now put the link in my post above. I did use a sensible browser and it showed %25%20 rather than %20. Not understanding the %25 I did not want to duplicate it. The link without the %25 seems to work.

I am not discussing this topic further. I have tried to be polite and tried to provide evidence for the other point of view. You guys continually ask questions not related to the original complaint and never produce any evidence to back up your original claim.

It is not a very logical argument that 'Microsoft have been bad in the past' leads to 'Microsoft are always bad'.

No evidence - no logic - pointless discussion

disciple · #27 Post by **disciple** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 01:18

I did use a sensible browser and it showed %25%20 rather than %20.

Interesting - I've never seen that. What browser?

I have tried to be polite and tried to provide evidence for the other point of view.

Yes, thank you for that. It has been informative.

You guys continually ask questions not related to the original complaint

Which questions for example? I thought they were mostly very relevant...

It is not a very logical argument that 'Microsoft have been bad in the past' leads to 'Microsoft are always bad'.

It also wouldn't be a logical argument that 'Microsoft says this feature will address this type of malware attack, therefore it must be true'

When Microsoft does something I certainly wouldn't assume that it is bad until proven otherwise. But I wouldn't assume that it is good either. For example (yes, it is a little off topic), the update which adds file validation to Office 2003 has "known issues" which make certain actions in Office essentially unusable (that thing about being slow when pasting large numbers of charts and stuff). I saw affected people who'd rolled out this update in large networks speculating that maybe the purpose of it was to force them to "upgrade" to (the chronically buggy and user-unfriendly) Office 2007.
Without a "smoking gun" I think it is ridiculous to assume that, but it does seem more plausible than the theory that it is an "anti-Softmaker" feature

I imagine there would still be more people using Office 2003 than Softmaker...

Dewbie · #28 Post by **Dewbie** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 04:11

ICPUG wrote:

I have tried to be polite and tried to provide evidence for the other point of view.

Understood, and appreciated.

(And for the most part, everyone has been polite in tbis thread.)

It is not a very logical argument that 'Microsoft have been bad in the past' leads to 'Microsoft are always bad'.

Oh, please...

disciple · #29 Post by **disciple** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 08:10

Ah, I had another look and found someone who's actually looked at how effective it is http://www.cert.org/blogs/certcc/2011/0 ... t_off.html

Dewbie · #30 Post by **Dewbie** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 08:36

disciple wrote:

Ah, I had another look at found someone who's actually looked at how effective it is

Carnegie Mellon University has a financial relationship with M$.
(That story originated on CMU's website.)

disciple · #31 Post by **disciple** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 14:46

There's some strange thinking in that article:

Someday, Dr. Wing said, she would like to see parents encourage their children to study computer science because "you can go into computing and do anything."

"My bias is that you would have an advantage over others. Because of my argument that computers are going to become pervasive, if you go into medical school or business school or law school, you will have an edge over your friends if you've been a computer science major."

In this part of the world if you study computer science first then your friends will be most of the way through law or medical school when you are just starting it. It seems to me like that means they have an "edge" over you. Am I missing something? Do they do something differently in the States?

Dewbie · #32 Post by **Dewbie** » Fri 22 Jun 2012, 20:06

disciple wrote:

There's some strange thinking in that article...In this part of the world if you study computer science first then your friends will be most of the way through law or medical school when you are just starting it. It seems to me like that means they have an "edge" over you. Am I missing something? Do they do something differently in the States?

Not that I know of.
Unless she's referring to someone studying law or medicine and computer science all at the same time.

(strange thinking, indeed!

)

Bruce B · #33 Post by **Bruce B** » Sat 23 Jun 2012, 10:35

I'll tack this post at the end of this thread. I suppose about everyone knows by now that the Microsoft Surface Tablet crashed on a broadcast demonstration. Sort of a funny to watch. Video length only 1:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1zxDa3t0fg

~

smokey01 · #34 Post by **smokey01** » Sat 23 Jun 2012, 11:22

Did the second tablet crash too?

disciple · #35 Post by **disciple** » Sat 23 Jun 2012, 11:50

Bruce B wrote:I'll tack this post at the end of this thread. I suppose about everyone knows by now that the Microsoft Surface Tablet crashed on a broadcast demonstration. Sort of a funny to watch.

I guess they've been reading the Halloween files and are trying to continue the tradition

disciple · #36 Post by **disciple** » Sat 23 Jun 2012, 11:58

ICPUG wrote:What is wrong is that PlanMaker does not make xls files to pass validation.

I keep forgetting to point out:
Since the validation was invented years after Sofmaker Office 2008 was released, that's not necessarily true, especially if (some/all) files created by Planmaker are false positives because they aren't harmful and worked fine before the validation was invented.
It would also be interesting to know whether Softmaker reverse-engineered the file formats, or if they had access to the specifications (Microsoft only "opened" them a few years ago).

disciple · #37 Post by **disciple** » Sun 24 Jun 2012, 02:33

ICPUG wrote:It is not a very logical argument that 'Microsoft have been bad in the past' leads to 'Microsoft are always bad'.

In the past and in the present: have a read of http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/
Perhaps they think they are God and therefore have to be the same yesterday, today and forever

disciple · #38 Post by **disciple** » Sun 24 Jun 2012, 03:05

Dewbie wrote:ICPUG wrote:
I have tried to be polite and tried to provide evidence for the other point of view.
Understood, and appreciated.
(And for the most part, everyone has been polite in tbis thread.)

It is not a very logical argument that 'Microsoft have been bad in the past' leads to 'Microsoft are always bad'.

Oh, please...

Thanks, that's a really handy link.
And I see

Despite international scrutiny of Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct, Microsoft has
continued to take similar unlawful actions to eliminate potential competitive threats. The only
real difference between Microsoft’s more recent practices and its earlier ones is that, as Mr.
Gates predicted, Microsoft has now changed its document retention practices.1

For example, in a January 2000 email to the
Windows Division, Mr. Allchin directed employees: “Do not archive your email. Do not be foolish. 30 days.

disciple · #39 Post by **disciple** » Sun 24 Jun 2012, 04:20

Thanks, guys. This thread has been very educational.

Dewbie · #40 Post by **Dewbie** » Sun 24 Jun 2012, 04:27

disciple wrote:

that's a really handy link.

The home page is here.

Thanks, guys. This thread has been very educational.

Thanks for your contributions, too.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

More M$ BS