Office update disables MS files

Twats

...BIG effing twats...!

What's wrong with a warning?

I can understand that they want to deprecate these file formats due to such concerns, but I would've thought a simple warning that the files are not regarded as secure on load/saving such a file would've been enough.

Self appointed guardian of the 3 letter file extension?

Who made M$ the final arbiter of which 3 letter extensions we can use? Do we have to get clearance from them for every bespoke application we write?

does the same restriction apply to...

OpenOffice?

2008. The year the IT department finally notices that MS have lost the plot (when the CEO's PA can't get at their documents any more...).

Executable content in documents?

No thanks. I'd like to disable all MS-Office based formats but can't quite, yet.

Soon the red dragon of mond will be slain and freedom shall be ours once more!

Well...

... not too much bother as you can batch-convert your old documents to newer formats anyway.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941636/en-us

At the end of the day, if the older formats (not just Office ones) are unsafe, then might as well deny access. You can reverse it yourself by adding new registry items anyway (which is a one-time thing so it may be irrirating but definitely not worth the typical "OMFG M$ idiots!!1!!!!onetwothree!" reaction.

Thank God for Open/PortableOffice then...

Office 97 is still the best of the lot, although it's going out the window soon for a copy of OpenOffice.

iWorks 8

...and they wonder why the Mac sales have been drifting steadily North since the introduction of Vista and Office 2007.

@ Cameron Colley

Erm... no, bad user, bad!

You seem to have missed the point completely. By performing little "updates" like this, MS are actually making it harder for the general user to use their product.

Mind you, we all know that said user would just click the OK button to any warning box so why not?

Notepad

.txt files still work perfectly ;)

So - what about Office 2007?

If this patch to stop "bad" file types from being opened is being applied to Office 2003. Does that imply that Office 2007 already refuses to work with these files?

Or have we got more ConsistentConfusion™ from M$?

What I would like to know is... anyone got a copy of OpenOffice and Office 2003? What's the betting that the file types blocked include those saved by OpenOffice?

Also - why a messy registry hack to turn this off? Why can't they just bury this in the Options? The average dumb user doesn't know what the "Options" are for anyway... so wouldn't mess with it. (Just like in Outlook Express and it's handling of attachments. The "idiot switch" is on by default to stop dumb users opening any old attachment... but it does mean that more "intelligent" users can at least turn the filter off.... (though why any "intelligent" user is using OE... that's another matter!!))

@ John Macintyre

"most people won't be using older versions anyway."

In point of fact, John, most people *never* buy a newer version of MS Office, once they have any version installed. The installed user base for "prior to Office 2003" is roughly ten times the size of the combined 2003 and 2007 user base.

So it's going to affect anyone who receives files from 9 out of 10 users outside their own office, and who is using Office 2003.

They did this before

Office something--or--other service pack 1 disabled "certain" file types in Outlook. With no way of turning them back on again.

Stop it. At once.

Malicious content in a DIF file

Hell, why not, they managed to completely phuck up JPG handling to make them potentially dangerous...

@Bruce Robinson

As an proud and happy apple owner, I have to warn everyone that iWorks '08 is the biggest bundle of sh!t they ever let off the line, they should rename it to iDontWorkWithAnythingButiWorks '08, as the default file format for pages is .pages (no converter for windows, no free viewer for mac or pc), and the only way to get a word doc out the other end is to export (not very user friendly at that). Not that I am condoning MS actions here, just lets call a spade a spade and a pile of sh!t a pile of sh!t, iWorks it does not.

Anon FTW

Re: Well...

"... not too much bother as you can batch-convert your old documents to newer formats anyway."

Great idea! I just don't know why then people keep moaning they cannot switch to OpenOffice, because they would have to convert their humongous amount of files...

Because, you know, MS Word itself cannot correctly open its own old formats, as I've seen many times with stuff I created 10 or 12 years ago. Lots of damn little square on the screen... (and it's not a font problem, btw)

Realistically speaking though

This is a fairly minor issue that won't affect many organizations in the real world that cares about business and not religious ideas about freedom etc. Microsoft is still provably superior in technology, integration and ease of use period. Once again they show that they're serious about security.

And all you linux nuts can go back compiling your kernels.

M$ Office. So 2007.

People are still using Micro$oft Office? How quaint.

A Microsoft Tangent

As an aside.....

Outlook Express under XP linked painlessly to a Hotmail account.

The Mail program shipped with Vista doesn't.

Time for the guys at Redmond to start listening to the user instead of dictating terms. Imagine an car salesman who told you where and when you were permitted to use a vehicle he sold to you?

For some bizarre reason

XP won't search in certain file types when looking for a file containing a given string (e.g. asp files).

I realise I can use other tools to do it, but I shouldn't have to.

I'm still using Office 2000 and it does everything I need it to. I can only assume they are trying to force Office 2003 users to upgrade by knackering their existing installation.

@DrunkenMessiah

uhh.. I think Cameron Colley's comment may have been a smidgen tounge-in-cheek

So here's an idea, everyone just use open office?! Don't you have to PAY for the MS not-quite-equivalent? And oo opens ms files as well as its own. Plus oo is free.. so everyone can have it, on any computer, without paying. Does this mean oo is going to be more compatible with ms-office than ms-office is?

<*snip* *snip*, post cut down to size, try not to ramble>

Erm, hang on a sec . . .

. . . . If I'm reading this and the KB article correctly, it's saying that if you use Office 2003, and patch it to SP3 . . . . you get locked out of it's own files.

wtf?

I bloody well hope that when SP3 for XP comes out, you don't re-boot and get told "This OS has been deemed unsafe, and therefore locked. Please install Linux"

I think the bods at Microsoft have been over indulging on the Brandy & Sherry this xmas.

Lotus and Quattro too

It's notable from the Microsoft article that Lotus and Quattro files are blocked as well (I assume from older versions). This seems a bit mean.

When I was a lad ...

37 posts so far, without anyone rolling out the "it's all been downhill after Word 5.1 for Mac" meme. Is this a record?

So what else is new?

The last version of Access that could read and write FoxPro files was Access 97, a fine product. That version of FoxPro could also be read in Excel. Then MS acquired FoxPro. Now we have an improved FoxPro that nothing in Office can read or write.

M$ is trying to kill off good products so they can sell whatever is the latest -- we used to call that "planned obsolescence".

various responses

> just look at how easy it is to use for the average user!

Yes, but not all of us are average users.

> Office 97 is still the best of the lot

Oh, yes, I agree. Especially with the free bookshelf reference included. Too bad Access 97 was total lemon (trust me, I have had numerous funny problems with it - for some reason a lot of my larger databases would cause Access to throw up out-of-memory errors repetitively to the point that I need to reboot my PC with the reset button after being open for a while (shutdown? would, but the start button turned into an unclickable white box along with various other parts of the screen!).

Ditched it for PostgreSQL and been happy ever since.

@Steven Hewittt

I would suggest this could be a major issue, it just depends if your business consists purely of chucking out new stuff all the time or if you have to occasionally go back to the archive to either support or update something you did a few years before. Or if you just value the knowledge that has been accumulated over the years.

And it really isn't difficult to manage 'security' by validating the file contents as you go. It just takes some extra thought in the implementation; unfortunately it frequently appears that most people don't go through any 'what if' cycle in their code design but they just bang out the first thing that works with a properly formatted file and leave it at that.

.

Lets say, for example, that 10 years ago I generated some documentation for a product/project. I followed all the rules and stored it away in the retrieval system along with all the drawings, code etc. etc. Any paper copies that existed may have been archived, but have probably just had the signature sheet scanned and stored (in the retrieval system) and have been shredded to save on storage.

Then the customer returns, wanting an update to their system and/or a replacement for the hardware someone flew into the ground.

I go back to the system, and pull all the files. I can still read and use the dxf, vhdl, C and other files are still fine. But for some reason I can't get at any of the documentation, even though it was saved in Word, and I'm trying to import it back into the latest flavour of Word... (replace Word with old/new software of your choice, this is just an example)

Obviously you could argue that it's worth storing documents in plain text, or in multiple formats, but then you end up with all kinds of formatting and layout problems, missing content (e.g. diagrams) and other glitches. Plus they aren't the document that was signed off. Or you could scan the document and store it all as TIFs, only downsides being you can't edit the document any more and the storage requirements are usually bigger.

(Obviously anything *really* special will be supported by the original machines for the service life of the program: it's not a problem using special files when you still have the original gear they were created on 20 years before!)

I've had to do this sort of thing a few times and while updating the documents to the latest template can be a pain, at least I can read them, usually without having to dig out some obsolete hardware and a few old install disks from around the place.

.

The other issue to consider is that depending on how update cycles are managed you might find you've gone from horribly obsolete to the latest flavour in a couple of weeks. Imagine how f*cked you'd be if documents you created a couple of months previously on your old system were suddenly unreadable.

.

So in the real world formats becoming obsolete, especially in a relatively short time can be a problem. Obviously it can be managed but that is something that potentially takes a lot of thought.

OFFICE 97 (ANOTHER 1)

loved it, only used Office 2000 cuz I picked out of a skip (2002), used publisher 98 and and mmmmm oh open/star office. Always had word 97 about until mid 2005 never had to load it again after openoffice took over.Had some free corel stuff on some systems once cuz they were free from a magazine CD's BUT word 97 alway got put on after a few uses.

Missing the point?

Msft are saying that these file are insecure and correct that these files are insecure and "They may pose a risk to you".

Fair enough at one level you might think (especially if you dont care about future accessibility).

But consider this: An MS file doesn't actually do anything - it needs MSOffice.

So the 'risk' is actually from Office 2003, and what we have here is Msft cheap-skating their way out of fixing bugs!