If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
David R. Norton MVP wrote... "Harlan Grove" wrote in: Password cracking isn't necessarily illegal. Why assume OPs have illegal intent? Why assume they don't have illegal intent? It seems to me you'd have to at least consider the possibility of illegal intent and there's no way to tell on Usenet if you're being told the truth or a story, is there? No, there's no way to prove anyone else's intentions, on Usenet or in the real world. So does one walk around assuming everyone else is a criminal? No, but one should consider the possibility. so, for those whose first impression is that everyone else is a criminal, how should one deal with the OP's request? Certainly not provide the requested advice. That won't do! Remain silent (i.e., just don't reply)? For the busy-body sorts, that won't do either! The obvious answer is to become a net-nanny! How silly of me not to have realized that. How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly. -- David R. Norton MVP |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David R. Norton MVP wrote...
.... How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly. .... MVP stading for most vacuous posting? The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop would save the OP money? Who's posting idiocy?! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
David R. Norton MVP wrote... ... How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly. ... MVP stading for most vacuous posting? The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop would save the OP money? Who's posting idiocy?! You are. Again... -- David R. Norton MVP |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in: David R. Norton MVP wrote... ... How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly. ... MVP stading for most vacuous posting? The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop would save the OP money? Who's posting idiocy?! You are. Again... Fine. I'm the idiot who realizes that honest people seeking to save money wouldn't bother to follow your oh so sensible advice, and criminals with half a brain more than you wouldn't bother for different reasons. You're the genius who believes money is no object after the OP has indicated that it is. Apparently you know what the OP wants/needs better than the OP himself. You must be able to provide detailed responses to posting with just the word Help in the subject line and no body, too. If you want to call what I'm writing idiocy, go ahead. Definitions in Usenet is maleable. Myself, I'd call it scorn. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
JE McGimpsey wrote in:
What benefit to anyone is there in presuming illegal intent, given that the cracks are commonly available and cheap? OK, so the availability of Office 2003 in Warez groups means that robbing the legitimate publisher of the software is all right? I can't see the ready availability of cracks is justification for using them. Especially since the OP, in this case, presumably used his real name and address, despite MS's warnings not to? And how do you know he used his real name? I notice while you're defending him you use the word "presumably" so is it possible you also have some doubts? IMO, it's better to freely admit that Office document protection schemes are not secure, and direct people to the available information. MHO differs from yours. Next next time I see some disreputable person trying to open a new luxury car with a coat hanger should I just assume it's his car and he has a right to it? Isn't that pretty similar to what you're saying? -- David R. Norton MVP |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
MHO differs from yours.
IMO, we should call a halt to this thread. It isn't helping the original poster at all. -- Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I did say I was a skeptic. And I never said that this particular poster said
anything about a situation. All I did was state my opinion. And you stated yours. That's cool. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with me. I'd have to change my mind about things - and then so would everyone else. ARGH!!! :-) -- JoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] "JE McGimpsey" wrote in message ... FWIW, I think JoAnn was rather out of line on this one. Assuming that someone (who, BTW, posted under a real name and email address and who has been a relatively frequent poster to many groups) is "nefarious" is pretty harsh, not to mention horribly paternalistic. Just based on my experience, it's far more likely that the OP has forgotten the password on his own important file than that he was trying to do something illegal - there was nothing in the original post to indicate one way or the other, though the circumstantial evidence seems heavily weighted toward legitimacy. (I don't know where JoAnn's "You mean that's what they *say* is the situation" comes from, since the OP *didn't* say.) Unfortunately, XL's password protection is a sham. It ill-serves users to withhold commonly available tools - it may even lead them to think that XL's password protections are reliable, when they most definitely are not. I assist people on these groups because I like to, not because of what they might do with it. I'm not going to withhold commonly available information about passwords from a user just because they might be dishonest, any more than I worry about whether someone uses that nifty SUMPRODUCT() formula that I gave them to further their embezzlement. I've posted a method of bypassing internal password controls to my site as a convenience - the macro was being posted several times a week to the newsgroups anyway, so anyone with the sense to Google could find them. Likewise, if the OP had chosen to Google for a password crack, he'd have found hundreds of posts recommending cheap commercial solutions for file passwords (I don't know of any free ones that are worth anything for reasonably long passwords). In article , Sarah Balfour wrote: I'm with Jo on this one - I wouldn't assist anyone in cracking a passworded document even if they say their intentions are honourable - I don't want to be party to any nefarious dealings. I believe it was Beth who said that she was once asked to crack a file and it turned out to be someone's personal journal. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Excellent advice, David! But of course, no one ever wants to actually pay
for such services. -- JoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] "David R. Norton MVP" wrote in message ... (snip) How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly. -- David R. Norton MVP |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote: And I never said that this particular poster said anything about a situation. Sorry - it appeared to me that your statement was directed at the OP. I see now that it was in response to Harlan's straw man. My apologies. You did, however, rather strongly imply that the OP didn't have the right to "break into" the file, though you also qualified it with "maybe". :-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote: OK, so the availability of Office 2003 in Warez groups means that robbing the legitimate publisher of the software is all right? Please. The situation is not even remotely the same. The availability of a commercial package that is never distributed via warez sites means that downloading Office 2003 from those sites is presumably always illegal. There are, however, many legitimate uses for removing passwords. There is nothing in any license agreement, much less law (at least in the US), that restricts someone's ability to access files that they own or are legally entitled to, by removing the password protection. There are companies that have provided these legitimate services for decades, and there have been free methods for many protections for nearly as long. Given that even a moderately close reading of the Office license agreement makes it clear that Microsoft doesn't represent that any Office application is fit for any particular purpose, it's clear that MS is not claiming that removing the protection violates its license, or even that it's wrong. The only other reason it would be illegal is if the person removing the protection doesn't have the legal right to the information. That is not a technical issue, and given that there are legitimate reasons for removing the protection, I see absolutely no reason for people not to avail themselves of legal services. The fact that some misguided people rely on Office protection schemes to keep their information secure, despite Microsoft's own explicit claim to the contrary, and despite the plainly available free and commercial methods of removing them, shouldn't limit the legal users from recovering their information. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Password Crack | Eric Fehlhaber | General Discussion | 68 | August 25th, 2005 12:52 PM |
How hard is it to crack a password that's been set for a Word or . | Jennifer | General Discussion | 2 | April 20th, 2005 10:10 PM |
excel password crack | bobf | General Discussion | 3 | April 14th, 2005 01:57 PM |
Can't save password in Account field | dgprice | Outlook Express | 3 | February 2nd, 2005 02:17 AM |
Changing dsn connection information (Password) | Mike N | Worksheet Functions | 2 | December 3rd, 2003 09:04 PM |