Corporations Suffer Microsoft Activation Bug 744
Uncle Bob writes "Trustworthy Computing, eat your heart out! As of the 2003-04-14 update, people are reporting that Office 2000 SR1a is now asking to be "registered" again. And again, and again. Very little information has been posted on the traditional news sites (the only link I could find was The Register. Note - The Register's story is not quite accurate, but the registration bug is real. Our company with approx 80,000 PCs has been hit...."
This hit us. (Score:5, Informative)
The solutions microsoft has suggested to us thus far:
upgrade (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is true, then? (Score:3, Informative)
The dude didn't say "false", he said "The Register's story is not quite accurate, but the registration bug is real.". What part of that did you not get? The article referenced doesn't get *EVERY TINY LITTLE DETAIL* right, but the fact still remains that this is something that I get to look forward to getting calls and e-mails about in the VERY near future (I'm the Admin...).
Re:sra1a? (Score:1, Informative)
Crack (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This hit us. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yay for not upgrading (Score:2, Informative)
A microsoft article on this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This hit us. (Score:5, Informative)
By implication, if you put the clocks on your workstation back two years to fix this Office problem you must *also* do the same to every other host those workstations talk to, like the Domain Controllers.
And if you put the clocks back on the DCs, every machine they talk to must have their clocks put back, and so on. Pretty soon, you're going to have to put the clocks back for a significant portion of your entire computing infrastructure.
Which means that people are going to start getting very confused (and concerned) when web frontends, emails and other documents from affected companies start showing dates in 2001...
I guess we can call this the Real Millennium Bug.
Anyone seen any cases yet?
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Informative)
I am going to second this point, as it truly is one of my pet peeves.
The new Securom 4 is absolutely awful about this. I have many friends whose brand new games will not play because Securom tries to do things with their brand new CD-ROM drives that those drives just don't handle well.
What are these customers supposed to do? Buy a new CD-ROM drive? What if that one doesn't work either?
The one solid workaround that I have found is to use Daemon Tools in conjunction with a product like Alcohol 120% to create a perfect MDS image of the CD.
Let's face it. With names like "Daemon Tools" and "Alcohol" these products are clearly not targetting your casual software buyer, who is just as likely as a pirate to be locked out of a game he legally purchased. They won't know what's going on, they just know that their game doesn't work 90% of the time. Oh, and good luck returning that opened software if they simply can't get it to work at all.
The irony here is that anyone who makes an effort to play games illegally is probably familiar with these tools, which is to say precisely the people Safedisc, Securom and others are trying to stop.
Most asinine of all is that the games which have CD-keys and are more or less entirely multiplayer oriented -- Warcraft 3, Unreal Tournament 2003 -- have for some reason adopted the most bleeding edge versions of Securom. Anyone serious about the game is going to need a legitimate copy of the game in order to have a valid CD key! Why force them to have the real CD inserted as well?
So far Bioware, with Neverwinter Nights, gets my award for the most clued-in company in this regard. NWN shipped with Securom 4 support, which was almost immediately disabled by the first patch.
I only wish Blizzard would do the same for Warcraft 3, so I could stop explaining to my friends that everyone gets those "Please insert the game CD" messages, and that their options are: repeatedly click 'OK' until the stars align properly and the game decides you're not evil; or, use an MDS image with Daemon Tools and you won't have any more trouble.
Re:Why is it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:upgrade (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This hit us. (Score:5, Informative)
That Microsoft is even suggesting that workaround is insulting.
Re:Why is it (Score:5, Informative)
If you RTFA, you'll notice that it is affecting corporate users running Microsoft Select software. Microsoft Select is a bulk licensing scheme which saves corporations from all that tedious mucking about with license keys (a practical impossibility with this size of user base).
I happen to know the 'global energy company' which is mentioned in The Register article. They pay Microsoft a huge sum of money for their software and this is going to affect their relationship significantly - they are not amused. I expect there will be a significant discount on future licenses, a large penalty payment or a very high profile public relations disaster for Microsoft.
Re:This hit us. (Score:3, Informative)
Some steps to follow;
The key is to remind all employees regularly (twice/year or thereabouts) in writing, and keep management abreast of the situation and the reasons for doing so to ensure maximal CYA. If they don't listen to you and they lose work ("HDD crashed? Sorry, we can't justify $3k for data recovery for your workstation. But it's ok, your work is all stored on the server, right?"), it's their problem, and their job on the line.
The BOFH approach, while fun, doesn't work terribly well with common users. You have to explain the situation to them and attempt to reason it out in language they understand. If they know more than you about these computers (then why aren't they doing your job?), ensure that they've received their bi-monthly copy of the computer usage guidelines and hope it never has to come to a head.
Re:Why is it (Score:1, Informative)
Hardly. Both of them deal with security patches for the various operating systems, nothing about Office 2000, the subject of the main article.
Four Licensing Schemes/ Three versions (Score:5, Informative)
These can be purchased under four licensing levels:
1. Individual Retail: High unit cost, includes CD, with single-use registration key.
2. Open: Lower unit cost, CD bought separately (C$30), multiple-use registration key.
3. Select: Even lower unit cost, CD included, no registration required.
4. Enterprise: Select with Software Assurance.
Note that it is only the latter two where registration should not be required that are being affected.
Maybe they did do it that way (Score:2, Informative)
BTW From my read of the article it requires a certain W2k version/license combo + a specific Office 2000 SR1 upgrade to trigger the bug AND the problem only starts to occur after a certain date and time. That's why setting the clock back 2 years works. In that case no matter how thoroughly you tested the deployment beforehand unless you routinely set your test beds clocks ahead by several years you'd never see the bug.
Re:I don't believe in open source. (Score:2, Informative)
My Dads old employee used to have a really good CAD program for designing chips. It was developed inhouse. They could have sold it but management said: "We are a hardware company not a software company." Now they pay $10K per seat for similar software.
90% of developers don't produce software that is sold by the companies they work for. They produce software that the company uses. Anything that can lower development costs is a good thing.
Re:This hit us. (Score:4, Informative)
You have so much problems - Emails with the wrong date which make you look stupid (and may cause to not be read at all), programs complaining about files made in the future, confusion about which day is today ("but my calendar said that the 8th was saturday") and lots of other problems.
Just download openoffice [openoffice.org] or get a warez MSOffice from mldonkey.
Re:This hit us. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is that the software has a bug which only triggered after a certain amount of time / a particular date goes past / can't validate it's existence with Microsoft HQ / whatever.
It is quite simply not feasible to test for this kind of problem.
Moreover, if you were running open-source software you wouldn't have to worry about the license-management systems screwing up -- there aren't any -- and you'd most likely have a solution in a much shorter time.
(``Change the clock on affected PCs'' is _not_ a solution -- see my other comment [slashdot.org] to this story.)
Re:Institutionalized Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
How complex are your documents? (Score:3, Informative)
I use Office for a variety of data analysis tasks, and I rarely have a document more complicated than a letter that doesn't get corrupted in some way when making the transition. Even simple graphs lose their axes (or worse). More complicated plots get completely corrupted. I've never had a powerpoint presentation that opened correctly.
Additionally, openoffice's implementation of the spreadsheet is a certified joke. It is missing many of the statistical functions from excel, making life difficult. Also, it's not smart enough to determine what app goes with a certain file. For example, if I have an ASCII datafile, I have to tell it every time to open it as CSV, or it opens it in the word processor (and that gets really OLD quickly, especially when you're editing a lot of files and forget to keep doing it).
I do support wholeheartedly the idea of an open source office suite, but OpenOffice isn't yet ready. If you've had good fortune with file conversion, you are truly lucky. And I've found OO to be kludgey even outside of conversion, even missing features. I never thought I'd see a worse designed UI than MSOffice, but Star/Open Office nailed it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Set the clock back? NO! (Score:3, Informative)
Similar bug in original Office 2k (Score:3, Informative)
Within the first few seconds of running Office, users are prompted with the one line message:
"Do you wish to register Microsoft Office 2000 Professional?"
Whether the users click Yes or No, Office (whether it be Word|Excel|Access|Publisher|Powerpoint) just simply exits.
It had me confused for a bit, until I realised that you have to log on to the machine as
Once this has been done once per machine, Office 2000 has worked fine for us.
Presumably this simple fix no longer applies for Office 2000 SR1a, since it made a Slashdot post.
Re:Confusion... (Score:4, Informative)
For instance, MOUS testing software is *extremely* picky, and must be installed onto a machine with Office 2K SR1 SP2. STAB @ that.
Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Informative)
More interesting, however, is why these companies haven't tested their upgrades prior to deployment. Surely a company with 80,000 comptuers has a few system on which to form a small testing environment behind an internal firewall? "Upgrades" from MS shouldn't be exempt from security and stability testing prior to deployment. And just because MS says it's a fix doesn't mean that it will work with your company's configurations. In reality, this should be a non-issue as proper testing would reveal any major problems. The fact that this *is* an issue should be a wake-up call to all IT managers and those above them that proper testing is required on *ALL* software and upgrades.
Sheesh. Some people.
Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Informative)
This particular bug is triggered by the date. In other words, the testing procedure would have had to include moving the clock forward past a certain "magical" date.
Personally, I think that this sort of testing should be done by Microsoft. As far as I am concerned that's why you are paying hundreds of dollars a seat for their software. If this bug was triggered by the existence of some third party software then I could maybe see your point, but this is a simple bug in MS Office. The fact of the matter is that after a certain date certain versions of Office 2000 try to register themselves and fail (because Microsoft shipped a broken wizard).
Re:But OpenOffice is actually NOT FREE? (Score:4, Informative)
Digging around will net you a patch [linux-debian.de] from Debian to remove the gpc requirement..