main

Microsoft faces new licensing row

Tom Warren   on 08 May 2003 - 12:13 · 5 comments & 307 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Biggest users of Terminal Server will be worst affected by licensing change

Some of Microsoft's biggest customers face extra costs because of licensing changes introduced with Windows Server 2003.
Organisations using Microsoft Terminal Server software to access central applications will be affected by the changes.

Windows 2000 users were able to connect to Terminal Server for free. But with the newly launched Windows Server 2003, customers will have to buy a Terminal Server Client Access Licence for every user device whether it is a PC or a thin client.

Westminster buying arm the Office of Government Commerce is concerned that the changes will mean a "significant cost increase".

"Some departments run centralised applications and there appears to be an increase in this trend. For these departments, there is potentially a significant cost increase," said a spokesman.

"While we understand that holders of Enterprise Agreement licences will be provided with Terminal Server Client Access Licences at no extra charge, we are concerned at the potential cost to the government. As such, we are reviewing the overall impact of the introduction."

The move will create more bad feeling among users, according to David Rippon, chairman of the BCS IT directors group Elite.

News source: vnunet.com


Microsoft has touted Passport as a technological centerpiece in the company's Web services future. Passport accounts are central repositories for a user's online data and can include personal information such as birthdays and credit card numbers as well as acting as the single key for the user's online accounts.

Microsoft moved quickly to prevent online vandals from exploiting the issue. The advisory was posted just before 8 p.m. PDT, and by 11:30 p.m., the software giant had essentially turned off the vulnerable feature. "We have shut down all ability to reset passwords," said Sean Sundwall, spokesman for the company.

The flaw allowed a single Web address--or URL--to be used to request a password reset from the Passport servers. The URL contains the e-mail address of the account to be changed and the address where the attacker would like to have the reset message sent. By entering the single line into a Web browser an attacker can cause the Passport servers to return a link that allows an account's password to be reset. By following the link returned in the message, the attacker can change the password for the victim's account.

Danka claims to have found the issue after a friend's account had been hacked.

"Later, my friend gave the 'attacker' my passport address as a challenge, and mine was compromised as well," he wrote in the e-mail. Not long after, he figured out how the attacker had compromised the accounts.

The security consultant also said that he had repeatedly sent e-mail warnings to Microsoft's abuse and security addresses at Hotmail.com to no avail. However, he didn't send an e-mail to Microsoft's standard security contact point, secure@microsoft.com.

It wasn't clear Wednesday night whether the flaw affected all Passport accounts, or a smaller subset of accounts. Several security experts confirmed that the flaw could be exploited in the manner described by Danka.

"I tried it on my own account and I tried it on my friends' accounts, with full permission; it worked on all occasions," said Wayne Chang, a student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "This is definitely a big security flaw."

The issue couldn't be confirmed by everyone. In some cases, security experts didn't get an e-mail back from the server.

"I just tried again, and have not yet received an e-mail with the change password link in it," Marc Slemko, a Seattle-area software engineer, wrote to CNET News.com in an e-mail. "That either means it is much slower now or has been disabled."

The engineer believed Microsoft would rally the security teams to handle the vulnerability, as the issue had enormous implications for customers.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 5 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 MR_Candyman on 08 May 2003 - 12:21
lately I've been getting a feeling of hopelessness from microsoft. It seems like they're trying to make as much money as possible in the next little while not caring about their reputation at all. I wonder why they take such actions. They've always been money hungry, but lately they seem to want more and more for doing less and less work. I don't like the direction they're taking...not at all....I prefer linux, but honestly, the world relies on ms and until it doesn't I don't want to see companies suffer because of increased running costs or shotty products.
#1.1 TC17 on 08 May 2003 - 18:57
[neoquote=#1.0 by MR_Candyman]lately I've been getting a feeling of hopelessness from microsoft. It seems like they're trying to make as much money as possible in the next little while not caring about their reputation at all. I wonder why they take such actions. They've always been money hungry, but lately they seem to want more and more for doing less and less work. I don't like the direction they're taking...not at all....I prefer linux, but honestly, the world relies on ms and until it doesn't I don't want to see companies suffer because of increased running costs or shotty products.[/neoquote] Perhaps Websters dictionary should changed their definition of the word greed. "Greed"="Microsoft"
#2 macrosslover on 08 May 2003 - 12:44
[QUOTE]"Any government department is quite at liberty to run only Windows 2000 server. There's nothing forcing them to upgrade to Server 2003," he said.[/QUOTE] i think that pretty much sums it up right there. of course if you want to upgrade to the latest and greatest, there are going to be some costs. while this isn't the greatest thing for MS to do, i get the feeling that alot of the details and perks are being left out, ignoring the fact that companies like Sun and others have very similar licensing plans. frankly, i'm a support of MS, but if you don't like it, don't use it, it's that simple or don't upgrade. i'm sure there are alternatives for whatever programs you are using, so nobody is really forced to use MS, except PC gamers lol.
#3 dougkinzinger on 08 May 2003 - 13:40
right on man
#4 shao on 09 May 2003 - 08:06
ffs, i've seen this news posted all over the place.. from computer weekly to websites such as this. This additional license costs are a no brainer. If you want to use windows2000 terminal services on a pre-windows2000 operating system, or non-microsoft operating system - you pay for the CAL. So why [I]shouldn't[/I] you pay for a windows2003 cal if you're using a pre-windows2003 operating system? To be honest, you're pretty much getting windowXP style benefits from using windows2003, plus all the benefits to the back end system that administrators and IT departments love. So, why are microsoft EVIL by not giving all this stuff away for free? Macrosslover sumed it up, every other big, and sucessful software solutions provider uses similar or worse licensing schemes.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)