Remember how this month’s Outlook security patches broke VBScript printing?

Topic

New Reply

Ends up it was a feature, not a bug. Post coming in Computerworld.
[See the full post at: Remember how this month’s Outlook security patches broke VBScript printing?]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Breaking something people are accustomed to using or doing is a new feature??? ROTFLOL!! At least until I just read the actual article on Computerworld. I guess some folks at Redmond need to go back to school to learn about a key concept Woody mentions in the article…communication. I agree with him that if this reduced functionality had been mentioned in the FIRST place, (and a workaround provided in the bulletin or other location readily accessible by those affected), the affected users would’ve been better prepared for this turn of events after patching.

3 users thanked author for this post.

SueW, Noel Carboni, Elly

Reply | Quote

Reminds me of the classic joke:

A man asked for a meal in a restaurant. The waiter brought the food and put it on the table. After a moment, the man called the waiter and said:

“Waiter! Waiter! There’s a fly in my soup!”

“Please don’t speak so loudly, sir,” said the waiter, “or everyone will want one.”

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

During the early 1980s, I worked in Computer Services at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. It was part of the Michigan Terminal System network, which was born at the University of Michigan some years earlier. While I was there, MTS replied to requests to do things for which it was not programmed by replying, “This is not a fearture of MTS.” It’s a comment that has stuck with me over the three decades since I left the UofA.

There are 10 kinds of people:
those who understand binary numbers
and those who don't.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Woody, in your article you wrote:

The change is intended to make it harder for bad guys to break into your computer. That’s a noble goal, but it sure could’ve been communicated in a much better way.

Noble? The important part is where the functionality goes away.

For example, lately all I ever see in my Outlook preview pane is texty eMails, some of which are littered up with a bunch of links and little “broken image” boxes with red Xs in them.

OK, by Outlook not interpreting those messages supposedly I’m protected from malware borne on images and via HTML.

I’m also not getting the benefit of the full HTML-integrated eMail experience any more!

It’s not MY fault – I didn’t code Outlook 2010 to be vulnerable to malware delivered that way in the first place. Yet here I am using a product that once worked nicely and is now partly broken, and I’m supposed to be happy? NO WAY would it have been acceptable if it was delivered this way on the initial date of release.

Frankly I don’t personally care if I get the “full glitz” eMail experience… Virtually all of my important eMail is textual, business stuff, and I’m anti-ad anyway. But I’m using this description to illustrate.

What I want to know is this:

Who makes the decisions at Microsoft that “security” patches can just remove functionality – and that is acceptable?

I’m sorry if I’m having some trouble seeing “noble goals” here.

-Noel

5 users thanked author for this post.

flackcatcher, Elly, SueW, lurks about, Sessh

Reply | Quote

Got to agree with Noel; the days when you could put “noble” and “Microsoft” in the same sentence are long gone.

Windows 10 Home 22H2, Acer Aspire TC-1660 desktop + LibreOffice, non-techie

2 users thanked author for this post.

flackcatcher, Elly

Reply | Quote

Noel, often I find there 2 ways to fix a programming problem as a programmer. The first is to actual spend time to understand the problem and develop a fix that has little or no effect on users. The second is remove or block functionality and force users to jump through hopes to regain the lost functionality. The first is often hard but is also the best method as the programmer spends time to actually understand the problem. The second is at best a band aid because it really does not fix the problems only removes or hides it.

2 users thanked author for this post.

flackcatcher, Elly

Reply | Quote

Wait, it removes VB scripting or breaks inline (attached) images?

Reply | Quote

It broke also archived emails from Symantec Enterprise Vault.

Reply | Quote

If you uninstall the update it fixes Symantec Enterprise Vault email archiving so that if you double click an archived email, it works again. You have to ensure that the Exchange Email policy opens the shortcut contents rather than the shortcut properties. Thank Microsoft for breaking all our EV implementations!

Reply | Quote