A History of Modems

Man, does this take me down memory lane…

… not particularly good memories, mind you.

Tamsin Oxford at Techradar.com just posted a fascinating, pictorial stroll through the history of modems. Well worth a gander.

Merry Christmas everybody!

The fireworks were out in full force, for our Thai-style Christmas.

It’s been rumored that Santa, having finished his rounds, intends to stay in Phuket.

Can’t say that I blame the old boy. He looks positively tuckered out…

New Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt

The mainstream press is full of articles about Howard Schmidt, the new Cybersecurity Coordinator for the Obama Administration.

One guy – a guy you’ve read about on this site before – knew Howard before he was cooool. Rob Rosenberger, one of my favorite security gadflies, wrote a solid analytical piece on his VMyths blog, directed toward Schmidt just when he took over CERT, way back in February, 2005.

Here’s what Rob has to say about Schmidt’s new job:

It’s wrong to say ‘this cybersecurity job has no power,’ because that’s not what the president’s advisor needs right now. “Power” is irrelevant at this stage.

The bureaucrats in D.C. lost sight of their true mission in the late 1990s when they first started fighting over cyber-turfs & cyber-budgets. The federal bureaucracy needs to nitpick over its political apparatus. As such, it needs someone to guide the political apparatus.

This explains why other people resign from the job in frustration, and why many others refuse to even take the job. They want to steer cyber-security initiatives when in fact they really need to guide the political apparatus. Schmidt is one of the very few who realizes this.

And he’s willing to take on such a thankless duty! This is why I’m his #1 unabashed fan.

Here’s the kicker. Schmidt will never get the credit he deserves for guiding the political apparatus — someone else down the road will take all the glory for “finally” steering all those federal cyber-security initiatives we keep hearing about.

Right on, Rob.

Custom XML and the demise of Office 2007 as we know it

There’s a lot of misinformation about this in the press, so let’s start with the basics.

You know about markup languages, yes? In its most basic form, a markup language lets you turn plain text into fancy text. For example, if you want the word Mxyzptlk to appear in bold italic, a markup language might understand something like:

< bold > < italic > Mxyzptlk < /italic > < /bold >

and display Mxyzptlk the way you want. Those thingies inside the < brackets > are called tags.

(If you’re an old WordPerfect user, you might remember a feature called “Reveal Codes.” In many ways, WordPerfect’s reveal codes are just a particular kind of markup language. When Microsoft introduced Word 1.0, it determined that Reveal Codes were harmful and hateful and fattening, and banished them from Word. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth emanated from the WordPerfect camp. But the worm has turned.)

XML, Microsoft’s eXtensible Markup Language, goes one step further and lets you define your own tags. So for example, you could create a formulation like this:

< bit > blah < /bit >== < bold > < italic > blah blah < /italic > </bold >

and the new tag < bit > suddenly takes on meaning.

In Office 2007, Microsoft introduced a new set of file formats based on XML. The .docx, .docm, .xlsx, .pptx and other formats you’ve probably sworn at, embody Microsoft’s attempt to move from a document file format that absolutely nobody could understand, to one that’s at least somewhat less inscrutable. If you crack open an Office XML file, you find that – to a first approximation anyway, and with a few if’s and but’s – it consists of a bunch of zipped text files, and a little bit of glue that holds the zipped text together. If you save a PowerPoint presentation in .pptx format, for example, each slide becomes its own zipped text file inside the pptx file.

With me so far?

Now for Custom XML. You can create your own, custom XML tags and stick them inside one of the new Office 2007 files. Not many people have the insane desire to write custom XML, but programmers (who may or may not have insane desires) use them on occasion. One example that Microsoft gives is for PowerPoint: if your company has a gazillion PowerPoint slides, you could write a program that scans the slides and sticks data inside custom XML tags that describes the slides. The data would be stored in the .pptx file, so it travels wherever the slides go. You could then write another program that asks a lowly human for his or her preferences, then scans all the slides in a particular slide dump, and assembles a new presentation based on whatever criteria the human had the temerity to give. The Really Neat Thing about PowerPoint Custom XML tags is that the data can be associated with a specific slide: the Custom XML contents get stored in a zipped file inside the pptx file, but the glue that holds the presentation together creates links between the Custom XML zipped file and the zipped file that holds the individual slide. Thus, the programer can reach into the presentation and gather slides like daisies in May and – this part is important – the program never has to use PowerPoint itself. The bloat and overhead that comes with dealing with PowerPoint never rears its ugly head.

So now you understand why Custom XML can be important, especially in big companies, and why mere mortals rarely use it. You can probably also see that there has to be a way for the glue inside the pptx file to bring together the file itself and the Custom XML data.

Back to the headlines. Back in June, 1994 (!), a little company in Toronto, Ontario (in Canada, eh?) applied for a US patent on a specific method for making the glue that binds parts of the documents and add-on files. Ends up that the method they invented is very close to the way Microsoft uses to bind pieces of Office 2007 documents and their embedded Custom XML zipped files. On May 20, a federal jury in Tyler, Texas, found Microsoft guilty of violating the i4i patent, and order Microsoft to pay i4i $200 million. Microsoft appealed. On August 11, Judge Leonard (no relation) Davis, citing Microsoft’s lawyers’ hijinx, slapped another $40 million onto the judgment for willful infringement, and cited $37 million in pre-judgment interest. Microsoft appealed, and lost its appeal yesterday.

Microsoft’s press release gives a very succinct and (far as I can tell) accurate assessment of the situation:

This injunction applies only to copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007 sold in the U.S. on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010. Copies of these products sold before this date are not affected.

I’ve been searching up and down, and can’t find out why the injunction specifically applies to Word 2007, without also bringing down the wrath of the Court on Excel 2007 and PowerPoint 2007. My conjecture – and it’s only a conjecture – is that the case was so difficult, technically, that the i4i attorneys didn’t try to cloud the issue with the other products.

Microsoft’s been preparing for this eventuality for a long time. For example, companies that put together PCs with Office 2007 pre-installed have been installing versions of Office 2007 without Custom XML since October, per this advisory. (Thanks, Susan!) As of a couple of minutes ago, I can’t get through to that page. It’s possible that Microsoft took it down. If you can’t get to it either, here’s what it says:

Microsoft has released a supplement for Office 2007 (October 2009). The  following patch is *required* for the United States. /The patch will work with all Office 2007 languages/.

After this patch is installed, Word will no longer read the Custom XML elements contained within DOCX, DOCM, or XML files. These files will continue to open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed. The ability to handle custom XML markup is typically used in association with automated server based processing of Word documents. Custom XML is not typically used by most end users of Word.

Note that this patch is only for OEMs – the companies that put together new PCs. It doesn’t affect any customers, like you and me.

Several of you have asked what I think will happen next. Obviously, Microsoft’s attorneys are burning the midnight oil, trying to reverse the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision – but at this point their options are very limited: get the Fed Court of Appeals to re-hear the case seems very unlikely, and the Supreme Court looks to me like an even longer shot.

Will i4i go back and try to get damages for copies of Word and Office sold prior to January 11? Hell, if I was in their shoes, I would try. Apparently the Custom XML Schema technology in Word 2003 may infringe on the patent, as well. And if Word 2007’s a dirty patent-buster, Excel 2007 and PowerPoint 2007 must be in the same pigpen.

I think it’s highly unlikely that Microsoft will cut a deal with i4i – which they obviously should’ve done from the get-go. I also don’t think that the Redmondians will have a sudden change of heart, decide that they shouldn’t have violated the patent in the first place, apologize, and compensate i4i. Naw. Never happen. Too many Microsoft lawyers making too much money off this one.

Funny. Sometimes the American legal system actually works.

The 87 Lamest Moments in Tech, 2000-2009

You know all those “top ten” and “bottom ten” lists that spring up at the end of every year?

This one’s different. Downright hilarious in places. Foibles galore.

Harry McCracken (who knows more than a bit about lame – hi, Harry!) has a funtastic list in Technologizer going through the 87 lamest moments from January 1, 2000 to date.

Another bit of good end-of-year reading.

Windows Home Server with 1 TB for $350 delivered

Is this crazy or what?

Right now, Newegg is offering the Acer Aspire H340 – a decent Windows Home Server machine – with 1 TB of storage and Windows Home Server for $350, including shipping.

It seems to be a decent machine, with an Atom CPU, and at that price it’s a screaming deal.

I’ve been running Windows Home Server for years, and I don’t know how I ever lived without it.

Rogue software – an interesting overview

Hamish O’Dea at Microsoft Australia has just published a fascinating white paper about rogue software:

These programs, which display false alerts of system infection and ask for payment to ‘clean’ the system, have been around for years; however they have recently become more cunning, more sophisticated and more prevalent… This paper examines what has changed in the rogue landscape in recent times and compares their evolution to that of other types of malware. We look at the ways in which rogues are similar to other malware, from their distribution to the methods they use to evade detection and how they react to large-scale elimination by Windows Defender and the Malicious Software Removal Tool. We also examine what makes rogues unique and how they extend social engineering techniques beyond the point of getting the malware onto the system through to the user’s interaction with the malware itself and beyond. We look at how rogues deal with the distinct challenges of having a recognizable brand and the ways they take advantage of a user’s trust in their computing platform, from the operating system to the browser and even the search engine they use.

A very insightful analysis from somebody who obviously knows his stuff. Well worth reading.

Details on the Win7 European browser ballot box

Gregg Keizer at Computerworld just published a thorough look at the “ballot screen” compromise Microsoft recently reached with the EU.

[There will be twelve browsers listed on the ballot box], but just five on the first page.

The first five are Apple’s Safari, Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s IE, Mozilla’s Firefox and Opera. On a second screen, the ballot will list AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and SlimBrowser…

The ballot screen will include two links — one reading “Install,” the other “Information” — under each browser’s logo.

Interesting how the compromise developed. It remains to be seen if the approach will help any individual browser – notably Firefox and Chrome.