Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Introduces the Paid Security Fix
Nimey writes "Adobe has posted a security bulletin for Photoshop CS5 for Windows and OSX. It seems there is a critical security hole that will allow attackers to execute arbitrary code in the context of the user running the affected application. Adobe's fix? You need to pay to upgrade to Photoshop CS6. For users who cannot upgrade to Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe recommends users follow security best practices and exercise caution when opening files from unknown or untrusted sources."
I can see it now, all software vendors are going to introduce security flaws or wait until one is discovered to release the next paid upgrade release.
I think a class action suit is in order for all the holders of the older version. It their software causes a security hole and if one person gets hammered by it then like the car companies having to recall and fix cars, software vendors will have to do likewise.
Are you listening Adobe.
When you have nothing to say, blame Microsoft.
And everyone who downloaded it illegally will just download CS6 in response. Oh, and half the people who paid for CS5 will probably do the same thing. Great move, Adobe.
Three orders of magnitude is very large in real life.
Windows 7 Ultimate: $200
Photoshop CS6: $700
Oh yeah, Microsoft is so much worse.
No, but I could have my identity stolen, bank accounts compromised, vital information about friends/family/co-workers/customers stolen, etc. Looking only at one extreme possibility (or non-possibility, as you used) is, well, pretty damn narrow-minded.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
There is an old story I will retell that should serve as a warning for all customers.
Once upon a time, there was a transport company employee charged with replacing a large segment of the companies trucks made by Volvo. The employee, being a bright individual called up a sales clerk from Ford that had been trying to get a foot in the door and asked him to send three Ford trucks for testing. The day the Volvo sales clerk came to make discuss the purchase of new Volvo trucks, these three Ford trucks happened to be parked on the lot. When the trucking company employee saw the Volvo sales clerk glance at them, he said "Yeah, the boss has been looking them, he seems to think they are an alternative worth looking into. But that is for later, lets discuss the deal you were going to offer us".
In another company far far away, an CTO who loved IBM hardware knew it was time to discuss the purchase of new hardware, so he ordered an underling to set up a trial project with HP servers, just to see what the competition was doing. When the IBM man came by he of course showed him the workfloor including the corner where the junior was working on those shiny new HP servers, "Got to give the kids their toys to play with " the CTO told the IBM sales clerk. "Btw, what was the price you were going to ask for again".
But in the dark and damp lands of Mordor, a very different tale was playing out. There the CTO invited the MS and Abobe sales clerk and proudly showed them how his entire business depended completely on their software product and how not only did they need the software to work flawlessly or they would be bankrupt in seconds, all the staff could only use the latest software and their customers demanded that they use the latest software. "BTW", The CTO asked, "what was that deal you wanted me to sign in my own blood again while bending over"? And there was much rejoicing among the Tribes of MS and Abobe, for they knew exactly who was calling the shots. One lockin to rule them all and in Eula bind them. For the users of MS and Abobe where greedy and feeble minded and could not break free of the spell.
---
Really, this is nothing new. In the land of NAS and control systems, this is par de course. You let a supplier control you, control you they will. Want to break free? Good luck, your company needs the new version, license or risk being unable to produce so you hand them the cash and lock yourself in just a little bit more.
Not a SINGLE Photoshop user will invest in his own freedom by making sure there are alternative methods to do his production. They will grind their teeth buy the latest version and invest yet more to make sure their production is entirely locked into Adobe clutches.
Cue countless protests about how there are no alternatives... no, there are none because any who dares to try is ridiculed for not instantly producting a 100% compatible product for free because freedom should be free of effort and cost.
You gave Adobe the control, enjoy it.
It is not as if you are alone. Governments often dictate that procurement must be regulated, meaning that once a procurement contract has been done, all interest in customer satisfaction goes out the window because the contract is fixed, can't be ended and renewal depends solely on the price offered (not charged) so fuck you peon.
I seen it to often in other industries, entire production line depended on one type of machine, fired your own maintenance team and anyone who could switch them out with other hardware. Goes, the "extra" charges sure went up a lot didn't they? Suddenly maintenance must be done by their certified team, at weekend charges.
Lockin, avoid it or pay the price.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
More importantly, if you bought CS5 for $2000 just three months ago, you have to pay to upgrade. It's like your iPhone 4 warranty running out when the 4s was released, even if you just purchased a v4 a couple weeks before hand.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If it's broken, get them to buy something to fix it.
Oh come on, this 'oh Microsoft is just as bad' is the biggest cop-out. In this case it's just a blatant lie, CS5 was released early 2010 and this announcement means they've discontinued support for it, Windows XP was released in 2001 and is still supported now and will be until mid-2014.
Adobe's fix? You need to pay to upgrade [from CS5] to Photoshop CS6.
Ah yes, I would be delighted to buy more software from you, since it worked out so well last time around.
Windows ME got 6 years of support (Microsoft offers a minimum of 10 years of support for Business and Developer products). Mac OS 10.3 got 4 years of support (Apple don't have a defined policy for their life cycle, just a general rule that they offer support for the current and previous version). REHL will get 13 years of support.
Two years of support for CS5 is not just "a *bit* quick" for such expensive, professional software. It is an insult.
MS security fixes are not "no cost".
They just look cheaper on the surface, because the cost is amortized across BILLIONS of forced Windows licenses, instead of MILLIONS of Photoshop licenses.
Three orders of magnitude is very large in real life.
Does not compute. Windows XP has been around for a decade. XP will have received "free" updates for 12 years when support is finally dropped. On the other hand, Adobe Photoshop has had 8 major version releases during that time. According to Adobe's website site, 4 of those versions are no longer supported...and apparently we need to add another few versions to the list.
Bitch about MS all you want, but their support of security fixes for Windows and Office has been excellent compared to companies like Adobe. If I were a Photoshop user I would have spent thousands of dollars to keep my version in support compared to the $200 that XP costs up front. And yes, it really isn't fair to compare OS support to application support.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
You're not a programmer, are you?
You certainly know nothing about how impossible it is to write "perfect" software.
"Bitch about MS all you want, but their support of security fixes for Windows and Office has been excellent compared to companies like Adobe"
I have to agree, MS has indeed patched XP for a long time. MS gets lots of practice in patching security holes but to their credit (I never thought I'd say that about MS!) they have not charged anything for it. I can't even complain about them dropping support for XP in 2014; they've carried it for a long, long time and that is pretty responsible behavior (given the very slow move away from XP). Neither did they need to provide patches to pirated versions, but they did that in the best interests of the worldwide computing community.
IIRC Adobe is not the first to pull this "buy the new version" stunt.
"More importantly, if you bought CS5 for $2000 just three months ago, you have to pay to upgrade."
Good reason not to pay for it in the first place.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes, however many companies have sunk many thousands of dollars into testing and release of a new version of the software in their offices, Adobe taking this step may cost those organisations even more funds and cause increased internal stress. It's not only internal factors that must be considered, but also external ones. If you're not considering the impact on your customers of such a decision, you're ignoring a key stakeholder.
Look at the release date of Adobe CS6. It was released on the 7th of May, basically just a few days ago. Now look at when the bug apparently reported to them - back in September of last year! It looks very much like Adobe have delayed fixing a serious security vulnerability until they could get away with charging users for the fix.