I’ve seen several stories about “ransom-ware” type software, but these applications were asking for $9.95 or some thing like that. The guys that wrote this software are greedy and what $50…
Panda Software said that it has detected a new spyware program that
promises free access to pornographic websites, but installs malware -
which only is removed in exchange of a $50 payment.
I just found out about this film called Elephants Dream, it is the world’s first movie made with entirely open source software. I just finished downloading a copy and I have to say it isn’t all that bad. The fact this is all done with open source software is the best thing.
This survey by Centennial just reaffirms some of previous post about managing portable storage devices like USB Flash drives and iPods.
the survey showed…
I like it when I see this story and everyone starts calling the BSA names or calls them a liar. Why does every one accuse them of making the numbers up? The story title says "the world", I think it is a pretty accepted fact that you can step out of a cab in China and buy any software title you want for a couple of dollars, that alone would account large percentage of this number. Then throw in the other countries in the region and that could take up another large chunk of that number.
Then you can go to places like Slashot and get even more fanatics commenting on the story…
Every one knows there is software piracy in the United States, is it 35%? I don't know about that, but it is happening. Just look at the BSA web site to see a list of the companies that have been fined for illegal software.
I think the big question is – are companies doing this in purpose or are they just not paying attention to it? While I think the are some companies out there who are knowingly installing illegal software, they figure they won't get caught so why not do it. The other companies just don't know about it, they don't have anyprocesses or processes in place to monitor what is happening on their computers.
I linked to a story a couple of weeks ago about corporations starting to worry about employees unsecured instant messaging software, while here is a good reminder as to why they are worried.
Security researchers have identified a new worm spreading across Yahoo's instant messaging network that has been cloaked under the guise of a "safety" browser in an attempt to dupe users.
First discovered by anti-malware researchers at FaceTime Communications, the worm, labeled as yhoo32.explr, is forwarding itself throughout Yahoo's IM system via the contact lists of people whose computers it has already been infected. Once loaded onto a PC, the malicious program automatically hijacks the computer's existing browser home page and encourages users to visit a fraudulent Web site that attempts to load spyware programs onto their devices
I guess there are several questions companies should be thinking about right now:
This short posting takes a different look at Microsoft and how they try to lock customers into their platform. I usually see it from the desktop and database side, the author says that battle is over and Microsoft is going after the 'network of files in an organization'.
He says the newest way for Microsoft to get a hold of you and not let go, is to get SharePoint installed in your organization. Its cheap, fast to install and once people start using it you can't get them off it. Since everyone becomes so addicted to the service, you can't take it away from them or change how it works.
That is exactly what Microsoft wants.
Here’s another story regarding software vendors going after people selling “discounted software” or pirated software on the internet, specifically eBay. It was Microsoft last time, not is looks like Symantec and McAfee are leading the charge with some help from the SIIA.
So here is the follow up story to my previous post (read it first).
I meant to write about this the other day, but got side tracked and forgot about it. But today there is an update to the story, so I figured now I could write about it and still seem timely.
It turns out now, that Lawless wasn't part of the Microsoft's license group after all – she is part of the engagement team? You know the ones who go out and find work for the consulting groups.
This was about getting a consulting job for Microsoft software asset management business. They were using the "software licensing issue" to get consulting a job, then maybe while they were onsite they could find some missing licenses and make more money.
Is this how Microsoft works? They say no and I sort of believe them a little, I don't think any software vendor is out there to irritate and mislead their customers. That would not be good for business.
The article also points out that if you are a Microsoft customer…
Your customer history and purchase cycles are reviewed on
a monthly basis by an engagement manager like Lawless. (That's right — your
Microsoft purchasing history is handed off to the consulting side for making
sales pitches.)
So the fact that a customer’s purchase information is being reviewed on a regular basis is part of a big conspiracy? I don’t really agree with that.
After all any software company is going to constantly be looking at their customer’s license data,
A software vendor exists to make money, for that matter most companies exists to make money, so I don’t fault them for reviewing the purchase data. If they didn’t do this, they might not be in business for to long.
Should the consulting side of the business be doing thisreview process? I’m not sure about that, is this part of their job function? Is this the first group that gets access to the data, the article implies they are the group doing the review?
But we have already seen some incomplete information in the story, so my first question would be… “are they the primary group that does the review or do the sales people responsible the account do the review and then if they find some thing that looks wrong – do they then pass this information along to the consulting group to follow up on?”
It still founds a little funny; I would think there was some sort internal compliance group that would contact customers if any issues were discovered during the review process. Then the compliance group would go onsite and perform an audit of the customer’s data.
Either way, I think it is a good story and makes you wonderhow many other companies this has happened to
I meant to write about this the other day, but got side tracked and forgot about it. But today there is an update to the story, so I figured now I could write about it and still seem timely.
Read the first story for all of the details, but it basically comes down to this… A company call AWC was contacted by a Janet Lawless at Microsoft about a software license issue at AWC – implying that they might not be licensed properly.
Lawless played up how licensing is important and that AWC should let them come audit them. AWC said they err on the side of caution when it comes to licenses (which to me sounds like over buying, but that is another topic for later) and didn’t accept the "offer" of an audit.
Lawless didn't like this and turned up the pressure. At that point AWC got the lawyers involved (ch-ching) and sent a letter detailing their software purchases, assuming this would solve everything. It didn't, Lawless said that wasn't enough and they need to have an 'unbiased audit'. AWC decided to let the lawyers handle things from there on.
Comment #1 – Like the story says, this is Microsoft trying to intimidate a customer and scare them. I'm sort of surprised Lawless just didn't send some sort of bill to AWC for some licenses…. "sort of like, while if you pay this we will just forget about the whole thing."
Comment #2 – as bad as Microsoft's behavior was, why did AWC assume that sending Microsoft a copy of the purchase records proved anything? How is that proving anything about your company being software compliant? All is shows is you have copies of your purchase orders or invoices.
Just because you bought 100 copies of Office 2003 from Microsoft, that do anything to show Microsoft or any other software vendor for that matter how many copies of Office 2003 are installed ion the computers in your company.
Any Software Asset Management (SAM) program at a minimum means that you:
I think there is more to a SAM program that I listed above, but those are the very basics. Based on the information in the story, AWC had step two covered and nothing else.
There are dozens of people and/or companies out there telling organizations that they need to have a software asset management plan (sam) in place, but there was never an "official" standard to these companies to follow. Hopefully that will start to change now with the release of this new standard.
While the entire standard is not written at the moment, at least the first part that covers processes and procedures is done and available for organizations to implement.
Part one covers:
The second part coming later in the year will cover the tools that can or should be used for the SAM program.
The BSA (Business Software Alliance) seems to be backing the standard…
“We are delighted that the ISO has launched this standard and we congratulate all those in the standards and software asset management community around the world who have worked so hard to bring this to fruition,” said Neil MacBride, BSA’s Vice President for Legal Affairs. “It marks a milestone in the global development of software management best practice and will help organizations of all sizes to ensure that they are fully software compliant and making best use of their software assets. We will be actively promoting the availability of this standard throughout the world in the months and years to come.”
Click here to purchase a copy of the document.
