Does the security vulnerability announced by Adobe this past week in the license management service affect CS2 and/or the individual CS2 applications or is it just CS and/or the individual CS apps?

no, just CS is affected. Read the knowledgebase article.

Crap!! we're going to have to re-image 2 weeks into summer semester!

Too bad that in fixing this license manager problem, that Adobe doesn't go ahead and provide a fix also of the reactivation problems in PS CS. I don't know that they didn't but I suspect not.

Does anyone know what happens if the security patch is applied to a system with both CS and CS2 on it? Will it break the CS2 activation?

what fix what secruity risk what article?

Yeah What? What? What? What Dave said, asked, whatever.

O-o-o-o-o-o, I still like my V7.

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331688.html

Bob

Daryl Pritchard,

There is NOTHING wrong with the activation so there is nothing to fix. Well, there may be a couple of very little things. One being that the legal purchaser may not be able to use the program, from time to time, for no apparent reason. And two, now it seems that others may be able to take control of our computers, thanks to Adobe activation. How ironic is that???

I love Photoshop, I have no problem with activation, I hate REactivation.

Peace,
Q

Does anyone know what happens if the security patch is applied to a system
with both CS and CS2 on it? Will it break the CS2 activation?




downloaded and installed. start cs. no activation request. close and start cs2 & bridge. no activation request. the planets are aligned and all is right with the world.

you'd think there might be a sticky thread on a security threat no, mods?

Q, look again...I said "reactivation". :)

"the planets are aligned and all is right with the world."

Right you are, I had no problems with the update. Thanks.

Daryl,
You are correct, sir. Smile... However, activation or REactivation, Adobe says no problem.
Q

Lets see, software that writes into the boot sector of your hard drive and opens up your computer to hackers, sounds like a virus....no wait, its Photoshop activation.

Maybe its a feature, that way the counterfeiters can really be monitored closely.

Perhaps a little more programming time on reliable functionality rather than activation schemes would be in order. Although the best deterrent to piracy might be flawed software. Anybody want a copy of Corel 11.

Another news flash for the AP.

Q, it's definately ironic that in an attempt to protect their interests from the public, Adobe has threatened the public's PC security.

But then, Adobe's primary concern wasn't the security of your PC. It instead appears to have been its desire to hassle the honest paying customer. Rather than a patch created in an attempt to repair a security breach cause by the flaky activation/reactivation issue, why don't they release a patch to fix the activation/reactivation issue itself?

Are they afraid of being accused of renewing customer loyalty?

Well, for whatever my gripes are regarding reactivation woes in PS CS, I'm glad to see that there appear to be fewer complaints showing up in the forum for similar issues in PS CS2. That's not to say that PS CS2 still doesn't have one serious flaw...it does...in that if reactivation should ever be prompted, you have to do so immediately or be denied use of PS CS2. Similarly, Transfer Activation requires an internet connection, and that is just flat out bad design in my opinion. It should be a localized process.

Regards,

Daryl

Hi Bob, how's it going? Somehow I figured you'd show up after that post. I'm not accusing anyone, just stating how things appear to me. If you can't imagine any company that would let an defect cause its customers a hassle, or even pain, consider Ford.

Do you think Ford had a top-level meeting where it was stated "We can fix the Pinto's exploding fuel tank for just dollars a car, so we'll recall them all and make them safe"?

I don't think so. And to be fair, I don't think they said "Let the consumer fry."

However, the cars weren't fixed after they were aware of the problem that killed many and injured even more.

I think the ingenuity of hackers may be overlooked in recent comments.

If the news did not feature in this Forum I think I'd be none the wiser - but it did, alm update installed - thanks for the news, views and repair

deebs

Again, I don't think anyone is making a concious decision to not solve a
problem. I agree that one exists but you're coming off like they don't
care, and I simply don't agree with that. There's just too many Adobe
employees at all levels participating in these forums for that to be true.

Bob

, I don't think anyone is making a concious decision to not solve a problem.





the one in cs with reactivation? yes of course they did.

That may well be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted
here. I can see it now...Adobe boardroom..."So, what can we do to make
the Photoshop experience as painful as possible?"




Do you really think the opposite is true, that early in each decision process they say, "So, what can we do to make the Photoshop out of box experience as pleasant and non-stressful possible for our loyal customers?" Is it more likely they say "So, what can we do that may positively impact Nasdaq:ADBE for the quarter, and let's not think too far ahead?"

You may be surprised to find that I believe the latter to true. It's a
fact of life that publicly traded companies have a lot of people to
answer to besides their customers.

But I do believe, based solely on what I see of the participation of
Adobe personnel here that they do care more than most companies.

Bob

OK, Bob. Maybe you're right. But I'll need you to explain it to me and anyone else who can see things as they appear to be.

The facts are:

1. Activation/re-activation issue (henceforth "the process") is a required process for legit users of CS in order to use their software.

2. There' ve been hacked copies of CS out for almost as long as CS has been out, and it's been reported that those with hacked copies of CS don't need to use the process to use their copy of the program.

3. Legit users have been locked out of the program and have lost money and maybe even customers because of the flaky process.

4. There' ve been hundreds of posts complaining about the process, and Adobe hasn't responded.

5. It's been suggested here in this forum that we keep an older version of the program on our machines to avoid being locked out by the process.

6. Legit users have been talked of using a hacked copy of the program to avoid loss of their legit copy because of the process.

7. Customers previously loyal to Adobe have threatened to not upgrade in light of the unfixed process, and some, like myself, have have not upgraded because of the process.

8. Folk including myself have voiced their opinion of the process to the appropriate page on the Adobe site, and not only is there STILL not a fix, but Adobe doesn't even acknowledge the messages.

9. We've been reminded repeatedly how Adobe monitors this site, thereby, they HAVE to know the displeasure we find in the process, the off-the-wall solutions being considered to circumvent the process, and the image it's giving Adobe.

It sure looks like Adobe has made the conscious opinion to refuse to fix a problem related to the process. People have complained about it. It only frustrates legit users, not hackers or pirates. It's cost folk time, money, and perhaps customers.

If you are suggesting that the stockholders are asking Adobe to refuse to fix the process.. then THAT is the most idiotic thing ever posted in this forum! I can't imagine (without the use of lots of alcohol and plenty of cheap street drugs), that investors want the company they have invested in to ignore and irritate the customers to the point that they boycott the products the company offers.

Bob, will you please explain how knowing this, Adobe hasn't made the conscious decision to not solve the problem? Inquiring minds want to know.

Hmm Bob Geldoff, Richard Branson, most musicians, artists and creative yet wealthy individuals

Maybe someone has been a victim of very poor middle management?

I heard a very interesting management talk thing.

Polite version
How deep in middle management?

Impolite version
How thick is middle management?

I mention the above in a reflective sense

I don't know why I keep getting sucked into these discussions but I owe
you the courtesy of a reply.

The complaints are legit...VERY legit. What I don't think anyone has
realized is that maybe...just maybe...they CAN'T fix it.

And now, I shall bow out of this discussion and let this poor dead horse
rest in peace.

Bob

CAN'T != WON'T

It's a conscious decision--several decisive factors. You surely could take those factors and plug them into a nice Excel spreadsheet, and when you plot it the good will outweigh the bad. If the good and bad cross at some point in that plot, it will be so far out on the grid that it doesn't matter.

No, Bob. Though we appreciate your respect for us demanding people by not deleting this type of thread, it's not you that owes us the courtesy of a reply... it's Adobe. We complain, gripe, rant, and get not so much as a "Oh my! That's terrible.", or a "So what?" from them. Are they listening?

If so, they should tell us! Tell us they're working the issue. Tell us we don't matter to them in the least. Tell us they hear us! their silence is testimony to their indifference toward us their customers!

The thought that Adobe CAN'T fix the problem concerns me. I've always thought they had programmers that are the best of the best and that it's just short-sighted management that's deliberately or not, screwing up the company and running the customers off.

Is it really possible that they can't fix the problem? That they can't create a patch to allow a seven day grace period between loss of use and re-activation? Some folk here at work seem to think it wouldn't be such a big programming deal. But then, these guys at work write programs for electronic defense systems that share combat data across platforms in real time.

r_harvey mentioned looking ahead. I agree with him. A company can do lots of shady things to generate lots of money quickly. But when the consumer finds they've been ripped-off or at least under appreciated, the company loses business. What's the point of making the money this quarter if you won't get repeat business?

A smart company looks to the future. Heck. Even Kodak makes digital cameras now.

As we say in England, Adobe have got their knickers in a twist and won't admit it!

As r_ says, as long as the good outweighs the bad, why should they bother.

We also have another saying: "When the chickens come home to roost..."

Pride comes before a fall.

It'll take a long time though.

I agree, John. It will take time. And during the time it takes, Adobe will have no clue as to why it's happening, and no way to avoid it.

The Roman Empire didn't fall overnight. Well, bad example. :)

General Motors made some pretty crummy cars and trucks in the 80's. I bought a new car in 81, and a new truck in 84. Both were total crap. They both had recurring breakdowns. I got to know the dealer's repair shop WAY better than anyone should have to.

After many, many, many complaints I was directed to Cheverlet Customer Relations in Maryland. I explained that with all the problems I had with them two brand new vehicles, and Chevrolet's indifference, I would never buy another GM product again. I told them I would consider a Ford.

I was told that Ford was making junk too, and that Ford customers would buy Chevys the following year, so they didn't care what I did.

Fast forward 20 years. GM has lost $1.1 Billion USD in the first quarter this year, and the second quarter isn't looking any better. True, a big chunk of the sales drop is due to the fact that GM makes so many gas hogs, and folk aren't buying them with gas around $2.45 USD a gallon. But! Sales have been way off for years! People traded GM loyalty for foreign dependability years ago and won't go back. Not even at the GM employee price.

It took time for GM to feel the rage (so to speak) of it's ignored customers, but it IS happening. Will GM go under? Nope. I think the government will most likely bail them out like they did Chrysler if it comes to that, even if it's only to keep the war effort moving. But their stock may never again be near the price it was at just 10 years ago.

By the way, I told GM I wouldn't buy their cars again, and I haven't. I'm very pleased with both of my Toyotas. :)

that investors want the company they have invested in to ignore and irritate
the customers to the point that they boycott the products the company
offers.




Those investors (mostly) care only about profit and loss, and Adobe is doing well. The investors don't give a damn about users/customers, they care about what the stock's selling for.

I do agree that the deafening silence about the re-activation problems with CS is disheartening. I'd say that PS CS users are stuck with what they've got. PS CS2 is a little better in that regard, but it still ain't right, and Adobe knows it. What do we do? Easy. Buy something else, don't upgrade, or shut up.

John J.,

"knickers in a twist" = "panties in a wad" Good phrase, either way. <g>

I agree, Nick. The investors are content for the time being. Just as they were with GM for a few years into the 80's. Eventually, consumers got fed up with buying junk cars and bought imports.

Investors jumped ship, and now GM is where it is. Takes time, but it's neat! :)

maybe...just maybe...they CAN'T fix it.




poppycock! they CAN hack out a fix in a week or less. the bosses and spreadsheet twiddlers won't let them.

funny how i was just about to raise the GM issue too. GM's freaking out because they have "confusing cross company model lines" and THAT'S why sales are down. some people in these giant corporations have their heads so far up their [spreadsheets] they honestly can't see what's going wrong around them.