"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
Excellent advice, David! But of course, no one ever wants to actually pay
for such services.
...

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication, going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's
original concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.



--
David R. Norton MVP

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
....
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication, going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

So all an IP thief would need to do is make a copy of a file, take it
home, copy it onto his own PC, call the shop and tell them his impish
nephew Bobby was playoing around on his PC and password protected his
customer list? And that proves legal access how?

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's
original concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.

Perhaps cost is immaterial to you.

Did you read the OP? Cost seems to have been the OP's primary reason
for posting. *IF* there were free document password crackers, then the
OP wouldn't have to pay anything, would he? Well, perhaps online
connect time if he isn't on a fixed rate plan, and if you want to be
extremely exacting, there would be some opportunity cost to the OP's
time spent downloading and using up disk storage for such software. But
the cost would be a pittance if there were free software to do this.

Beyond that, the cost of on-site service would likely exceed the cost
of the on-line service the OP thought too expensive.

Other than displaying your self-conceived sense of moral superiority,
why did you bother participating in this thread? Clearly not to help
the OP.

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in: ...
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

No, you're just being argumentative.

So all an IP thief would need to do is make a copy of a file, take it
home, copy it onto his own PC, call the shop and tell them his impish
nephew Bobby was playoing around on his PC and password protected his
customer list? And that proves legal access how?

Pretty hard to discuss anything with one who won't read or comprehend, we'll
drop this one. But it's really not that difficult.

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's original
concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.

Perhaps cost is immaterial to you.

It's not immaterial to me, it's immaterial to this discussion. Everyone
would like to have everything free, if that's not possible then you have to
pay whatever the price might be.

Other than displaying your self-conceived sense of moral superiority,
why did you bother participating in this thread? Clearly not to help
the OP.

No, just to point out your very disturbing lack of morals. But you probably
won't understand that, either. You'll make some more silly comments about
"net nannies" and continue to belittle people who don't believe in stealing.

I'm done with you.

--
David R. Norton MVP

"David R. Norton MVP" wrote in message
...

"Harlan Grove" wrote in: ...

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

No, you're just being argumentative.


What Harlan? Never! <g
--
Sandy


Replace@mailinator with @tiscali.co.uk

"David R. Norton MVP" wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
....

Then your experience is either severely outdated or
unrepresentative.

No, you're just being argumentative.

No, you're stating what most people, at least in the US and with some
familiarity with computer stores in the US, would recognize as pure BS.

The average computer store employee may know something about hardware, and
they may know something about operating systems and game software, but in my
experience they know nothing about MS Office nor anything about it's
password protection.

There may be B2B services with online databases available to service techs,
but they'd be VERY EXPENSIVE.

So all an IP thief would need to do is make a copy of a file, take it
home, copy it onto his own PC, call the shop and tell them his impish
nephew Bobby was playoing around on his PC and password protected his
customer list? And that proves legal access how?

Pretty hard to discuss anything with one who won't read or comprehend,
we'll drop this one. But it's really not that difficult.

I've read enough and comprehended enough to know you have no idea what
you're talking about. You seem to be unaware that on any machine that
provides e-mail with file attachments, it's possible to fake ownership (in
the OS sense) of any file that could be received via e-mail.

So how would anyone be able to establish legal entitlement to unprotect a
file before the fact? If it can't be proven, what's the point of paying
someone to attempt this pointless task?

. . . Everyone would like to have everything free, if that's not
possible then you have to pay whatever the price might be.

Given how much free software is available, it wasn't unreasonable for the OP
to ask about free password crackers. They may not be available (though SLOW
brute force code has been posted in the past in several Excel newsgroups).

No, just to point out your very disturbing lack of morals. . . .

Where have I advocated for breaking any laws? At most I've pointed out that
certain laws are very easy to break. That's immoral or amoral?

What I've written that you've failed to understand is that there are
legitmate uses for password cracking. Claims for legitimate use for password
cracking are more frequent than not, though I'll grant that claims aren't
proof, but my own experience has led me to believe that most such requests
are legitimate. If your experience is different, you gotta get some new
friends.

I'm done with you.

We'll see.

In , Harlan Grove told us an
interesting story. My reply to this story is at the bottom of this
message.

I'm done with you.

We'll see.

*sigh*

You are BOTH right
AND
you are BOTH wrong.

But I'm not going to *plonk* you guys for that. At least you were
polite, the both of you.


Btw: You'd have to be a pretty stupid criminal to leave your traces on
a fscking[0] Microsoft usenet server... So far nobody has mentioned
that argument!

[0] Pardon my French.

--
Amedee Van Gasse

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered
many? That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that removing
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if you
script it).

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take
on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than
cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an
interest in providing that service?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"? If you're talking liability to the computer shop for an
improperly unprotected file, a prudent computer shop owner would need a
heck of a lot of assurance, at a similarly inflated price.

going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for
the asking?

You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more than
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! File
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to the
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

JE McGimpsey wrote in:

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered
many?

As stated, everyone I've ever encountered.

That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that removing
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if you
script it).

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take
on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than
cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an
interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of experience.

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

going into a private home and seeing a PC simply requires asking.

Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for
the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more than
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! File
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to the
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

Above is completely unrelated to the discussion.

One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and asks
this group how to remove the password protection. Several people jump right
in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the file.

That's completely unacceptable. Anyone who password protects a file does so
for a reason and someone asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.
If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves but I know you won't be...

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

--
David R. Norton MVP

One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and
asks this group how to remove the password protection. Several
people jump right in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the
file.

OK. Say someone asks if the OP had a right to the file. The OP replies
"yes, it's mine". Now what?

That's completely unacceptable.

Because...?? Are we obligated to ask questions that have no probative
value? Obligated by what or whom?

Anyone who password protects a file does so for a reason and someone
asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.

Assuming you meant "suspect", your syllogism is missing a premise. In
the *vast* majority of cases I've encountered, both in the newsgroups
and in my business, someone asking for help in removing protection has
a legitimate reason for doing so. That makes them in need of
assistance, not suspect.

If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Assumption of facts not in evidence. Why do you *assume* the OP isn't
the owner?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

I can't vouch for anyone else, nor can I read their minds, but I didn't
assume anything one way or the other, because it doesn't matter. I'm
willing to help the legitimate user, and if the user has an illegitimate
purpose, the information I give is no more than what is already readily
available.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

Assuming you meant "relevant", you've still made no explanation for why
a computer shop should have any special authority or competency to
determine ownership of a file.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to
take on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do
more than cursory background checks on their employees? How many
even have an interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers

You've checked that they're willing to assume the liability? I'm not
sure that speaks very well of the shop owner's judgement. How much do
they charge for the service?

What kind of check do they do on their employees?

but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

Guess your time isn't particularly valuable. What about those that live
100+ miles from the nearest "shop"?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A
has legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of
experience.

That's just daft. What is it about computer shop experience that gives
*any* special ability to determine legal issues? Most of the computer
repair people I know are no less susceptible to social engineering than
anyone else. As a small business owner, I wouldn't want to bet the
equity of my company on a repairman's credulity. The training I'd have
to give them wouldn't justify the expense, so I wouldn't provide that
service.

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

Have you ever run your own business? What authorization criteria did
your bonding company use when deciding whether to bond you for a job?
How about your insurance company - if there's risk involved in providing
the service, do you think they're going to insure you for professional
liability if you don't have some criterion for determining who can
authorize you to break the protection?

If you think this is ridiculous, then the corollary is that you think
there isn't much risk involved for the shop owner, which undermines your
insistence that there must be some additional layer between the user and
help.

So the person (not in authority) at the company site takes the file
home, and can have it unprotected just for the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

And here I thought you were suspicious. That claim isn't backed by every
day experience - people of moderate intelligence and experience are
socially engineered hourly. How much are you willing to bet that I
couldn't convince that moderately intelligent repairman that my claim is
valid?

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

Replies on newsgroups aren't necessarily personal - I'm mostly replying
to your argument, not you.

I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding and
abetting.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and
asks this group how to remove the password protection. Several
people jump right in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the
file.

OK. Say someone asks if the OP had a right to the file. The OP replies
"yes, it's mine". Now what?

That's completely unacceptable.

Because...?? Are we obligated to ask questions that have no probative
value? Obligated by what or whom?

Anyone who password protects a file does so for a reason and someone
asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.

Assuming you meant "suspect", your syllogism is missing a premise. In
the *vast* majority of cases I've encountered, both in the newsgroups
and in my business, someone asking for help in removing protection has
a legitimate reason for doing so. That makes them in need of
assistance, not suspect.

If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Assumption of facts not in evidence. Why do you *assume* the OP isn't
the owner?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting
to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

I can't vouch for anyone else, nor can I read their minds, but I didn't
assume anything one way or the other, because it doesn't matter. I'm
willing to help the legitimate user, and if the user has an illegitimate
purpose, the information I give is no more than what is already readily
available.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't
relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

Assuming you meant "relevant", you've still made no explanation for why
a computer shop should have any special authority or competency to
determine ownership of a file.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to
take on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do
more than cursory background checks on their employees? How many
even have an interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers

You've checked that they're willing to assume the liability? I'm not
sure that speaks very well of the shop owner's judgement. How much do
they charge for the service?

What kind of check do they do on their employees?

but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

Guess your time isn't particularly valuable. What about those that live
100+ miles from the nearest "shop"?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A
has legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of
experience.

That's just daft. What is it about computer shop experience that gives
*any* special ability to determine legal issues? Most of the computer
repair people I know are no less susceptible to social engineering than
anyone else. As a small business owner, I wouldn't want to bet the
equity of my company on a repairman's credulity. The training I'd have
to give them wouldn't justify the expense, so I wouldn't provide that
service.

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

Have you ever run your own business? What authorization criteria did
your bonding company use when deciding whether to bond you for a job?
How about your insurance company - if there's risk involved in providing
the service, do you think they're going to insure you for professional
liability if you don't have some criterion for determining who can
authorize you to break the protection?

If you think this is ridiculous, then the corollary is that you think
there isn't much risk involved for the shop owner, which undermines your
insistence that there must be some additional layer between the user and
help.

So the person (not in authority) at the company site takes the file
home, and can have it unprotected just for the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

And here I thought you were suspicious. That claim isn't backed by every
day experience - people of moderate intelligence and experience are
socially engineered hourly. How much are you willing to bet that I
couldn't convince that moderately intelligent repairman that my claim is
valid?

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

Replies on newsgroups aren't necessarily personal - I'm mostly replying
to your argument, not you.

I certainly respect that choice. I just get irritated with those who
censure others who make a different one. There are plenty of posts that
I don't respond to because they seem "off". But that's it - I don't tell
them they shouldn't be asking.

In article ,
"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote:

I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding and
abetting.

What I say to my husband or think to myself about some posts is something
I'd never put down in writing. ;-)

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
I certainly respect that choice. I just get irritated with those who
censure others who make a different one. There are plenty of posts that
I don't respond to because they seem "off". But that's it - I don't tell
them they shouldn't be asking.

In article ,
"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote:

I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to
find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth
or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding
and
abetting.

In article ,
says...
I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding and
abetting.


That would be just fine. But, that is not what you did in this
discussion. You, and others, are (a) presuming guilt and (b) preaching
about the same.

I *do* stay away from such requests. In those instances where I
respond, it is along the lines of "search google...do ensure you are OK
with IP/copyright laws..."

What I find interesting is that if one starts with the presumption of
guilt, how does one help anyone on the 'Net? Just about *any* request
could be from a student violating her/his code of conduct and asking
for help with h/w.

Any attempt to access a file could be an attempt to hack into the file
("I need to get data from a file on the network server" or "I have to
access data in a file I cannot open").

Heck, even a request to add a watermark to a document could be an
illegal act. Maybe the document was written by someone else and this
person wants to steal it and put her/his name on it!

How does one stop the paranoia if we start with the presumption of the
guilt just because we don't know the person?

--
Regards,

Tushar Mehta
www.tushar-mehta.com
Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
Custom MS Office productivity solutions

We can't know what's in the hearts and minds of others. We can know what
makes us feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather err on the side of caution that
to help someone violate a law, a company policy, another person's copyright,
or a friend/family member's trust.

I have to do what I think is right, as do you. I have my hands full with my
own set of personal morals and ethics without trying to impose them on
others.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Tushar Mehta" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
says...
I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to
find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth
or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding
and
abetting.


That would be just fine. But, that is not what you did in this
discussion. You, and others, are (a) presuming guilt and (b) preaching
about the same.

I *do* stay away from such requests. In those instances where I
respond, it is along the lines of "search google...do ensure you are OK
with IP/copyright laws..."

What I find interesting is that if one starts with the presumption of
guilt, how does one help anyone on the 'Net? Just about *any* request
could be from a student violating her/his code of conduct and asking
for help with h/w.

Any attempt to access a file could be an attempt to hack into the file
("I need to get data from a file on the network server" or "I have to
access data in a file I cannot open").

Heck, even a request to add a watermark to a document could be an
illegal act. Maybe the document was written by someone else and this
person wants to steal it and put her/his name on it!

How does one stop the paranoia if we start with the presumption of the
guilt just because we don't know the person?

--
Regards,

Tushar Mehta
www.tushar-mehta.com
Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
Custom MS Office productivity solutions

Perhaps it is due to a "guilty conscience"

--
Don Guillett
SalesAid Software

"Tushar Mehta" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
says...
I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to
find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth
or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding
and
abetting.


That would be just fine. But, that is not what you did in this
discussion. You, and others, are (a) presuming guilt and (b) preaching
about the same.

I *do* stay away from such requests. In those instances where I
respond, it is along the lines of "search google...do ensure you are OK
with IP/copyright laws..."

What I find interesting is that if one starts with the presumption of
guilt, how does one help anyone on the 'Net? Just about *any* request
could be from a student violating her/his code of conduct and asking
for help with h/w.

Any attempt to access a file could be an attempt to hack into the file
("I need to get data from a file on the network server" or "I have to
access data in a file I cannot open").

Heck, even a request to add a watermark to a document could be an
illegal act. Maybe the document was written by someone else and this
person wants to steal it and put her/his name on it!

How does one stop the paranoia if we start with the presumption of the
guilt just because we don't know the person?

--
Regards,

Tushar Mehta
www.tushar-mehta.com
Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
Custom MS Office productivity solutions

In , David R. Norton MVP
told us an interesting story. My reply to this story is at the bottom
of this message.

JE McGimpsey wrote in:

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove
passwords from Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not
encountered many?

As stated, everyone I've ever encountered.

*snip*

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

*snip*

You should all be ashamed of yourselves but I know you won't be...

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

Woohoo!!!
MVP flame war!!!!!
/ROTFLMAO/
Looks like all the good stuff happens when I'm on holiday. ;-)

--
Amedee Van Gasse

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. =
Now he said that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous =
answers on how to get around it and open it.=20

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on =
how to get rid of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some =
of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3 yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that =
made National and International headlines when he hacked =
IBM,MS,Governments etc.

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:
=20
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords =
from
Office documents?
=20
Every one I've ever encountered.
=20
You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered=20
many? That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work=20
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that =
removing=20
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if =
you=20
script it).
=20
How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take =

on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than =

cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an=20
interest in providing that service?
=20
How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A =
has
legal standing to open any particular file?
=20
It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in=20
authority is reasonable indication
=20
Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in=20
authority"? If you're talking liability to the computer shop for an=20
improperly unprotected file, a prudent computer shop owner would need =
a=20
heck of a lot of assurance, at a similarly inflated price.
=20
going into a private home and seeing a PC=20
simply requires asking.
=20
Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the=20
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for =

the asking?
=20
You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more =
than=20
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not=20
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep=20
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! =
File=20
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that=20
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to =
the=20
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without=20
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

Nice fairy tale.

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on Yahoo,
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments etc.".

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any
long-term restriction on computer use.

His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out a
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with
anything?

Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly
didn't set much of a precedent.

How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit
be served?


In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft server
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the Content
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now he said
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers on how
to get around it and open it.

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story that a
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to get rid
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for another 3
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made National and
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

Not a fairy tale at all and that teenager lives directly across the =
street from me here in Montreal (Ile Bizard). I was also quizzed by the =
authorities since my son is friends with him and he came over often and =
I was working with computers for a living. I had my systems at the time =
removed by the RCMP\FBI\Local Police and was retuned to me after 3 =
weeks. Was very embarrassing to all.=20

Like I said you never know who is who and what is what.

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
Nice fairy tale.
=20
MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".
=20
He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use.
=20
His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out =
a=20
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with=20
anything?
=20
Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free=20
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find=20
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly=20
didn't set much of a precedent.
=20
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served?
=20
=20
In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:
=20
Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server =20
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.
=20
There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content=20
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now =
he said=20
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers =
on how=20
to get around it and open it.=20
=20
Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a=20
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to =
get rid=20
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.
=20
The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.
=20
Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3=20
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made =
National and=20
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

Slam dunk.

(I'm sorry to hear that you were drawn into that mess.)

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
...
Not a fairy tale at all and that teenager lives directly across the street
from me here in Montreal (Ile Bizard). I was also quizzed by the authorities
since my son is friends with him and he came over often and I was working
with computers for a living. I had my systems at the time removed by the
RCMP\FBI\Local Police and was retuned to me after 3 weeks. Was very
embarrassing to all.

Like I said you never know who is who and what is what.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
Nice fairy tale.

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on Yahoo,
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments etc.".

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any
long-term restriction on computer use.

His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out a
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with
anything?

Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly
didn't set much of a precedent.

How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit
be served?


In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft
server
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the
Content
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now he
said
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers on
how
to get around it and open it.

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story
that a
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to get
rid
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for another
3
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made National
and
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

The reason I was draw in is Jeff and my son usually played games on the =
computer in the basement here. So I was suspect for my computers were =
also possibly used as was his at his residence

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote in message =
...
Slam dunk.
=20
(I'm sorry to hear that you were drawn into that mess.)
=20
--=20
=20
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
=20
=20
=20
"Peter Foldes" wrote in message=20
...
Not a fairy tale at all and that teenager lives directly across the =
street=20
from me here in Montreal (Ile Bizard). I was also quizzed by the =
authorities=20
since my son is friends with him and he came over often and I was =
working=20
with computers for a living. I had my systems at the time removed by =
the=20
RCMP\FBI\Local Police and was retuned to me after 3 weeks. Was very=20
embarrassing to all.
=20
Like I said you never know who is who and what is what.
=20
--=20
Peter
=20
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
=20
"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message=20
...
Nice fairy tale.

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any
long-term restriction on computer use.

His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking =
out a
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with
anything?

Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly
didn't set much of a precedent.

How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the =
suit
be served?


In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =

server
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =

Content
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now =
he=20
said
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers =
on=20
how
to get around it and open it.

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the =
story=20
that a
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how =
to get=20
rid
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another=20
3
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made =
National=20
and
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.=20
=20

In article ,
"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote:

Slam dunk.

?? The fairy tale I was referring to was that somehow giving a password
crack to a teenager turned him into MafiaBoy. Nobody disputes that what
he did was wrong, but perhaps having a criminal for a father was a
bigger, more pervasive influence.

In any case, single anecdotes are a horrible basis for making policy. I
could list dozens of anecdotes about businesses that were saved by
cracking the passwords of critical XL files that malicious employees
wouldn't divulge. That would be a lousy reason to base policy on, too.

Instead, an evaluation of legitimate needs, widely available solutions,
and a lack of any legal or contractual basis to judge that cracking
Office passwords is inherently illegal or immoral is a better standard.

Slam dunk what?

According to some guy, he had his computers taken away by the cops
because his son played with some guy across the street that the cops
were investigating.

How does that have *any* thing to do with password protecting/hacking
an XL file?

--
Regards,

Tushar Mehta
www.tushar-mehta.com
Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
Custom MS Office productivity solutions

In article ,
says...
Slam dunk.

(I'm sorry to hear that you were drawn into that mess.)

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
...
Not a fairy tale at all and that teenager lives directly across the street
from me here in Montreal (Ile Bizard). I was also quizzed by the authorities
since my son is friends with him and he came over often and I was working
with computers for a living. I had my systems at the time removed by the
RCMP\FBI\Local Police and was retuned to me after 3 weeks. Was very
embarrassing to all.

Like I said you never know who is who and what is what.

My answers are in line

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".

Jeff was 14 yrs old at the time. And yes he did hack in there. The =
records on his HD when examined did show. That is why you had this =
commotion with top US law enforcement agencies also coming here. This is =
on record which is public and can be viewed here at the Palais of =
Justice by anyone

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use

Yes it did. He has 3 more yrs left. He cannot come over here but my son =
goes over to his house.

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20

That was house detention and was able to go out for only schooling. His =
probation was for 4 yrs.


How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served

Microsoft Canada was sued. Microsoft Canada has since been closed and is =
no longer here.
--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
Nice fairy tale.
=20
MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".
=20
He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use.
=20
His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out =
a=20
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with=20
anything?
=20
Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free=20
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find=20
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly=20
didn't set much of a precedent.
=20
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served?
=20
=20
In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:
=20
Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server =20
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.
=20
There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content=20
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now =
he said=20
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers =
on how=20
to get around it and open it.=20
=20
Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a=20
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to =
get rid=20
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.
=20
The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.
=20
Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3=20
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made =
National and=20
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:

Jeff was 14 yrs old at the time.

Jeff? I thought it was Mike...

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,

That was house detention and was able to go out for only schooling. His
probation was for 4 yrs.

Then the probation was lengthened post-sentencing:

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/cybercrimes.htm

(and yup, I should have written "of" instead of "in")

How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit
be served

Microsoft Canada was sued. Microsoft Canada has since been closed and is no
longer here.

Still can't find a cite...I'd have thought a decision like that would
have been widely reported.

NO. His name was and is Jeff. His fathers name is Michael . There is a =
Publication ban on children under a certain age and his first name was =
never mentioned. His Family name was as was his Fathers and Mothers =
first names

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:
=20
Jeff was 14 yrs old at the time.
=20
Jeff? I thought it was Mike...
=20
He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of =
probation,=20
=20
That was house detention and was able to go out for only schooling. =
His=20
probation was for 4 yrs.
=20
Then the probation was lengthened post-sentencing:
=20
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/cybercrimes.htm
=20
(and yup, I should have written "of" instead of "in")
=20
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the =
suit=20
be served
=20
Microsoft Canada was sued. Microsoft Canada has since been closed and =
is no=20
longer here.
=20
Still can't find a cite...I'd have thought a decision like that would=20
have been widely reported.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote...
....
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit be
served?
....

Just a guess, but the existence of moderators in presumably proprietary
newsgroups (e.g., starting with microsoft rather than comp or alt) could be
enough to make the sponsor liable. A very good reason not to moderate.