'Genuine' Notifications Screw Up, Again
 Joe Wilcox
News Commentary. Is an accident that happens repeatedly really unintentional? |
That's the question I'm asking about April 15's Office Genuine Advantage Notifications screwup. Microsoft had problems with Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications, too. What a coincidence. Could it not be another accident, or, worse, sheer incompetence?
A week after Microsoft announced the OGA Notifications trial—in Chile, Spain and Turkey—the offending update went out through WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) to "managed clients inside and outside of these intended countries," according to a post on the WSUS Product Team blog. So, if your business' servers were set to auto-approve Microsoft EULAs (end-user license agreements), OGA Notifications update (KB949810) may have been distributed to client PCs.
Like Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications, OGA Notifications check for software authenticity. If the Office version is deemed as being non-genuine, end users get pop-up warnings about counterfeit software. Uh-oh.
I'm in a decisively cynical mood today, and, whoa, does this little mistake fit, because Microsoft had problems with its WGA Notifications trial, too. I'm not much a believer in coincidence. Microsoft started the WGA Notifications trial in summer 2006, and it drew customer ire for bad behavior: sleuth and frequent collection of data and wording that made something wholly optional appear like a required update. So some people not intending to get WGA Notifications downloaded the anti-piracy mechanism. This week, OGA Notifications repeated history.
What to call it? Incompetent or intentional behavior? Neither is good. If Microsoft is so bad at managing its anti-piracy program, how can enterprises trust it? The program presumes that customers aren't trustworthy because Microsoft must frisk them all. But isn't Microsoft untrustworthy, based on its anti-piracy behavior. And that's a huge problem, because of the delivery mechanism. Consumers and enterprises should be able to trust Microsoft's Update services. It's paramount that they do because it's the way Microsoft distributes security fixes. Microsoft shouldn't give consumers or IT organizations reasons to turn off updating features.
But what if incompetence isn't the cause? What if somebody meant this to happen? It's the timing that makes me wonder. Microsoft's fiscal year ends June 30, which makes this crunch time for volume-license renewals. How convenient if, during renewal crunch time, some enterprises have counterfeit warnings popping up on some PCs. Asset management can be tricky, and sometimes unlicensed software slips through or the license isn't probably accounted for. Then there are those pesky false positives, which Microsoft denies are problems. I had a false positive, as did my mom.
Every informed IT manager should know: When in doubt, renew the contract, because Microsoft has legal rights to demand $150,000 for each counterfeit application. Microsoft really doesn't want that much money from enterprises because they are customers. But the company does expect to be paid for its software, and volume-license renewals should be good enough. Those pesky notifications will be incentive for somebody to renew.
I'm not accusing Microsoft of impropriety. My scenario is hypothetical, and, like it or not, Microsoft has the legal right to go after software pirates. Its software is licensed, not sold. Such an aggressive, ah, mistake might be questionable customer service, however. But it would be well within the stated rights granted in the Office EULA (caveat: I'm no lawyer).
My opinion of Microsoft's anti-piracy technologies is on record. I see "Genuine Advantage" as just one more way Microsoft creates customer ill will and damages its two flagship brands. Repeated Update services accidents—whatever their reasons—undermine customer confidence in an important mechanism for distributing crucial security fixes.
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.
Comments (14)
I commented to your previous OGAN article wondering what would happen if a false positive error was raised during say a presentation. Clearly this may be even more relevant than we feared! I'll repeat myself, since the other comment got lost in the "noise":
Here's an interesting scenario: You install a genuine/official copy of Office 2007 on your laptop, and somehow this OGA ("Oh God, Again!"?) software gets installed. You're running a presentation for a client or even worse a conference, and this "your copy of Office may be pirated you naughty naughty boy" message gets displayed in front of your now ex-client and colleagues. Remember, this is a FALSE POSITIVE!
So, could Microsoft be liable for slander (by the US legal definition)? Or sued for defamation, loss of earnings, etc?
This OGA, like WGA before it, is a major lawsuit waiting to happen. And as Joe says, I really don't see how Microsoft benefits from these programs - unless 100% negative press and increased legal costs are considered "benefits" in Redmond...
Posted by M J Marshall | April 18, 2008 8:15 PM
Sounds like an isolated incident to me that shouldn't cause any problems at all.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | April 18, 2008 9:34 PM
Legal costs are a deductible expense for a business, and if MSFT isn't getting 100% negative press, it's only because there are still idiots writing for tech and IT publications.
In honor of tomorrow, the answer from Ballmer would be "Ma nishta..."
Posted by Ken Houghton | April 18, 2008 10:15 PM
End to end trust!!??
How can they (MS) expect us to trust their end if they don't trust our end?
Posted by Bernie | April 19, 2008 2:42 AM
End to end trust!!??
How can they (MS) expect us to trust their end if they don't trust our end?
Posted by Bernie | April 19, 2008 2:43 AM
"End to End Trust," indeed! This is MicroSoft's vision, not only for their software, but for how computers will interact with each other (My computer won't trust your computer, because my computer cannot verify that your ENTIRE stack is trustworthy. And guess what? Don't expect any other computer to trust your computer, either. Lots of luck working accessing the internet! That "cloud" is now raining on your parade!)
Posted by Pinball | April 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Just a hic-up! Everything is fine now!
Posted by steveballmer | April 19, 2008 11:06 PM
Joe wrote:
"What to call it? Incompetent or intentional behavior? Neither is good. If Microsoft is so bad at managing its anti-piracy program, how can enterprises trust it?..."
Joe you are loosing touch with reality. Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are very effective. You may say you don't like them, but that's another story. That's what number prove and despite all the critisism for WGA, Microsoft is the only company that implement and operate such a strong anti-piracy mechanism. And I tell you what. It's also an important reason why Vista adoption is slow, at least in some countries.
Posted by evan | April 20, 2008 4:27 PM
Joe, I believe you are correct that WGA protections in Windows is causing false positives and pain for legit users. Enough to cause some to switch to alternative OS.
And while I can't actually think of a time when I have agreed with Evan, I do with some of what he says.
Evan says; "Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are very effective. It's also an important reason why Vista adoption is slow, at least in some countries."
----------------------------------------------------
I think Evan has mostly said the truth on this one. Micro$oft's WGA has been effective, and has bought the company a few added bucks from some people. Others, no, and MS was never going get money from them anyway.
Vista or XP is only a buck a disk in some countries. Like China, for example. Guess this is what Evan meant about the Vi$ta adoption. Only problem is, most in China will be running older computers that Vista will not be suitable on.
Greatly in favor of MS WGA, we want more WGA and tuffer WGA. MS will get more bucks, and Linux and Mac OSX more converts.
Posted by chips | April 20, 2008 10:40 PM
Joe, it looks like the office OGA hit about everyone.
Microsoft admits it sent Office nag to all WSUS servers
Admins, furious, say their Office installs have been falsely fingered as fake
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9079058
Oh, well, glad I use OpenOffice and Linux.
Posted by chips | April 20, 2008 11:07 PM
Well, I've put XP Pro in a VMware VM that has no network access though I use it as little as possible (financial app & PDA sync).
The rest of the time I'm on OS X, having migrated from SuSE Linux when its developers started playing silly b***ers with it. Am I glad I moved from Windows? Yes; though XP suited me fine, it was the underhand MS tactics that led to my 'migration'.
When a corporation is as rich as MS is, why is enough not enough?
Why didn't the US government divide MS into separate chunks, policed properly? Political donations is one answer but it doesn't serve the people.
Posted by Jerry Muller | April 21, 2008 9:24 AM
If WGA actually worked to prevent piracy I might be inclined to support MS efforts. But the fact is WGA does not work. WGA increase problems for legitimate users while the "pirates" it is meant to stop just keep moving along. WGA adds unnecessary code, unnecessary patches provides zero benefit for the customer. If MS really wanted to protect its product from piracy they would better off lowering prices and providing customers with a USB dongle along with the software. Its not a full proof option but it would actually curb blatant piracy. What MS is doing now is useless.
Posted by Scott Freeman | April 21, 2008 10:13 AM
Forget about the WGA! 20+ Windows Vista Features and Services Harvest User Data for Microsoft
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-the-WGA-20-Windows-Vista-Features-and-Services-Harvest-User-Data-for-Microsoft-58752.shtml
Big Brother got nothing on Microsoft!
Posted by The Hand | April 21, 2008 11:49 AM
I've gotten false positives with Vista. A call to Microsoft and 30 minutes later I am all fixed. But that shouldn't happen. But it does and it will. And when you have a presentation for a client or a conference and OGA causes a false positive with a glaring popup message that your software is not genuine... you are not going to look all that professional. Andre Da Costa says "isolated incident". That is all you need, one isolated incident and Microsoft has you looking like a loser in front of your client.
Posted by Tom Berber | April 21, 2008 2:58 PM