More M$ BS

Message

Dewbie · #1 Post by **Dewbie** » Thu 14 Jun 2012, 05:31

Spreadsheet originally composed with M$ Excel.

Changes made with SoftMaker PlanMaker.

Reopened with Excel, with ominous warning (see below).
Nothing bad happens when you open it, of course.

They're so subtle, aren't they?

(Use our office suite...or else!!!! )

ICPUG · #2 Post by **ICPUG** » Thu 14 Jun 2012, 12:11

Sometimes Microsoft are not wrong.

They are not saying use our software or else.

They are saying the file does not comply to Excel xls validation. Consequently, it may have a virus, lock up the machine, ...
The warning seems valid to me.

What is wrong is that PlanMaker does not make xls files to pass validation. I presume Libre Office does it OK. Gnumeric does it OK with the version of Excel I use. If one team can do it then I feel the onus is on Softmaker to rectify the problem, especially as Softmaker do not produce Free (as in freedom) software.

Dewbie · #3 Post by **Dewbie** » Thu 14 Jun 2012, 18:32

They are not saying use our software or else.

You can imply things without actually saying them.

They are saying the file does not comply to Excel xls validation.

Could this process be proprietary, at least on a later version of Excel than the one you have?

What is wrong is that PlanMaker does not make xls files to pass validation. I presume Libre Office does it OK.

Have a look at this:
http://ask.libreoffice.org/question/319 ... -wont-open

MS Office 2003 (with updates) gives me the warning, then opens the SoftMaker / PlanMaker-altered Excel spreadsheet with no problems if I choose to continue.

starhawk · #4 Post by **starhawk** » Thu 14 Jun 2012, 19:37

Obvious scare tactic is obvious. There is almost no need for that little "validation" check for home users (even as virus-laden as Windows can get), so it should at most be an opt-in feature for a custom install.

My reasoning there...? Simple social engineering stuff. If someone is stupid enough to download a virus-laden XLS (which BTW would be limited to an Excel macro, IIRC, and those are pretty harmless) then that little dialog box won't do a d*** thing -- all the bot-sent email needs to do is say "click past the meaningless warning box" and POOF there's no point in having one to begin with.

All MS is trying to do is lock out people who want to use other products -- it's competition prevention at work, by manipulating the users into thinking "other stuff isn't SAFE!"

Fear is a powerful emotion, both in motivation and demotivation. I live in America, so I'm no stranger to its effects. Our Republican Party (and particularly its primary media arm, Fox "News") is an AMAZING fear-generating machine at work, for many reasons. That's off topic though, so I won't go into depth about that in this thread.

darkcity · #5 Post by **darkcity** » Thu 14 Jun 2012, 20:20

would be interesting to test Excel with a real virus.

disciple · #6 Post by **disciple** » Fri 15 Jun 2012, 03:20

I can kind of see your point - because of the problem with malware in the Windows universe, saying "opening it may be dangerous" implies to a lot of people that it might be a virus or something, and that excel viruses are likely to fail the validity check. But that is obviously nonsense - the validity check isn't designed to check for malware, an accidentally created excel virus would be no more likely to fail the validity check than any other file, and a deliberately created virus would probably be less likely to fail (what malware author would want the user to have to click through a warning message for it?).

ICPUG · #7 Post by **ICPUG** » Fri 15 Jun 2012, 11:50

Thank you for the link Dewie. Looks interesting.

I do not have Microsoft Office 2007 or 2010 to test but I will see what happens with 2003.

I love the way you guys absolutely know the purpose of the validation check! I don't profess to know the mind of Microsoft any more than you do. I gave the virus possibility as an example. A malformed file for whatever reason is useful to know about. I get the same sort of warnings, perhaps not so stark, when I try to run media files on a system which does not recognise the file, probably because a codec is missing but could be for other reasons.

I will accept that the link referenced by Dewie downgrades Microsoft in my eyes from OK to 'perhaps they are performing mischief'.

In any event, the real problem here is that people use a proprietary format, xls, instead of an open format. While we continue to use proprietary formats we can never be sure they will get altered by the proprietor for their own purposes. If the same thing happens with an open format then you have a point.

disciple · #8 Post by **disciple** » Fri 15 Jun 2012, 12:25

Actually, according to Dewbie's link it's supposedly happening with .xlsx and .docx as well, which are supposedly open formats.

Dewbie · #9 Post by **Dewbie** » Fri 15 Jun 2012, 18:47

ICPUG wrote:

I don't profess to know the mind of Microsoft any more than you do.

Obviously, many of us view Microsoft's actions in the context of how they've behaved in the past.
(Doesn't "dangerous" seem a bit over-the-top as a word choice?)

RetroTechGuy · #10 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Fri 15 Jun 2012, 18:59

Dewbie wrote:ICPUG wrote:
I don't profess to know the mind of Microsoft any more than you do.
Obviously, many of us view Microsoft's actions in the context of how they've behaved in the past.
(Doesn't "dangerous" seem a bit over-the-top as a word choice?)

Obviously their defective and deficient software cannot tell the difference between a nominally correct file, and a file infected with an actual virus... Sounds like a good reason to avoid their products...

disciple · #11 Post by **disciple** » Sat 16 Jun 2012, 00:51

The point is that the check wouldn't have anything to do with viruses, that is just what it implies to the user.
The warning would be triggered by a spreadsheet (whether virus or not) written in Softmaker, and not triggered by a spreadsheet virus written in Excel. So who would write a spreadsheet virus in Softmaker?

BTW, what version of Softmaker is it?

Dewbie · #12 Post by **Dewbie** » Sat 16 Jun 2012, 05:19

disciple wrote:

BTW, what version of Softmaker is it?

SoftMaker Office 2008

Bruce B · #13 Post by **Bruce B** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 01:41

MS has taught me enough to first look for something nefarious, then if not found, maybe it is benign.

~

Puppyt · #14 Post by **Puppyt** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 05:26

Hmmm... it's the M$ "Fahrenheit 451" edict. Scorched-earth panic triggering from those luminaries that brought us "It's not a bug - it's a 'feature'!"

It IS dangerous to use any other product than M$. We can't have people thinking for themselves without paying for the privilege, can we? And the world is still flat - just ask Mr Rupert Murdoch (and sincerest, sincerest apologies to you Poms and Yanks for his unAustralian proclivities. Actually - you can keep him).

Face it guys - we're that irritating little child in the crowd, sniggering and pointing at the Redmond Emperor as he passes by, "Ha ha - we can see his weenie!"

I've been using SoftMaker 2010 (for Windows

) for 2 years without such a PlanMaker hiccup, though I note that I do have occasional issue translating between Presentations, TextMaker and the latest-and-greatest whatever-M$ I might be inflicted with at work. I've just pre-purchased SM2012 for Linux and from this weekend we'll finally be a M$-free household.

I'd rather be a dangerous, wild Penguin than a docile, domesticated sheep.

Dewbie · #15 Post by **Dewbie** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 05:53

Puppyt wrote:

I've been using SoftMaker 2010 (for Windows ) for 2 years without such a PlanMaker hiccup

I just noticed that the SoftMaker 2008 version of PlanMaker sometimes transposes numbers and inserts characters where they don't belong (vs. the original Excel spreadsheet).

Edit 1: Removed irrelevant fat.
Edit 2: Changed "document" to "spreadsheet."

disciple · #16 Post by **disciple** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 07:06

If it's corrupting your data that actually sounds pretty dangerous to me.

Puppyt · #17 Post by **Puppyt** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 08:12

Dewbie wrote:

Ahhh...so that's what Microsoft means.

What a great idea for a Puppy wallpaper! A Snoopy-esq character doubled over laughing at a naked King with a little M$ logo covering his crown jewels... any takers, from our artistic mob?

Edit: disciple's point is well made - there have been times where a complex document (with hundreds of comments, tracked changes from collaborators working on multiple versions of M$ Office) has been saved in TextMaker2010 Windows (in *.doc, *.docx or *.odt) and then found impossible to re-open in the latest LibreOffice in various flavours of Puppy (e.g., FATslacko, Exprimo 5.X.14 etc). If pain persists after I go all Linux+SoftMaker2012, I can email the developers on the support forum and receive almost immediate reply from them. Try getting that sort of after-sales service from M$.

...and I wonder whether GoogleDocs would give you such a warning as the OP, if the file was corrupted in any way?

Dewbie · #18 Post by **Dewbie** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 08:25

disciple wrote:

If it's corrupting your data that actually sounds pretty dangerous to me.

The data corruption only happens when the Excel spreadsheet is opened with PlanMaker.
When I re-open the same spreadsheet with Excel, everything’s OK.
Edit:
In both cases, the spreadsheet is only opened and read, not written to.
So PlanMaker reads the data differently.

How about this for a warning: Opening it may corrupt your data.
More specific, less ominous.

Puppyt wrote:

Dewbie wrote...

I did? Where?

ICPUG · #19 Post by **ICPUG** » Mon 18 Jun 2012, 12:48

I googled: xls file validation

The following two links seem to explain Microsoft's side of why it is implemented:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/office2010/a ... ation.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2501584

I tend to believe them as around that time there was a lot of concern that malware would start migrating to distribution through the applications.

Nevertheless, it is quite convenient that it catches files from competitors products as well!

As the above links suggest it was introduced to check binary files - where malware can be easily hidden. As I understand it xlsx is a zipped up xml file so it wouldn't be binary. I am not so surprised that it would fail the test.

disciple · #20 Post by **disciple** » Tue 19 Jun 2012, 01:12

As the above links suggest it was introduced to check binary files - where malware can be easily hidden. As I understand it xlsx is a zipped up xml file so it wouldn't be binary. I am not so surprised that it would fail the test.

According to those links the (zipped) xml formats aren't even supposed to be tested, so there must be a bug if they are being tested (as reported at Dewbie's link).
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.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

More M$ BS

More M$ BS