×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Introduces the Paid Security Fix

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the sure-would-be-a-shame-if-somethin'-was-ta-happen dept.

Security 392

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

392 comments

Call it the Microsoft method (-1, Troll)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | about 2 years ago | (#39959721)

If it's broken, get them to buy something to fix it.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959759)

Sorry but Microsoft does the best at offering security fixes at no cost. I can't think of another company that does it better than Microsoft.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (-1, Flamebait)

optimism (2183618) | about 2 years ago | (#39959883)

Sorry but Microsoft does the best at offering security fixes at no cost.

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.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (4, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 2 years ago | (#39959949)

Three orders of magnitude is very large in real life.

Windows 7 Ultimate: $200

Photoshop CS6: $700

Oh yeah, Microsoft is so much worse.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#39960173)

1000 / 3.5 ~= 285. Of course, that assumes you believe the OP's billions vs millions claim.

Sources claim 650M for windows 7:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Approximately-650-Million-Sold-Licenses-by-the-End-of-2011-202026.shtml [softpedia.com]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=ADBE+Key+Statistics [yahoo.com]
If 100% of Adobe's 4.2B revenue comes from $700 Photoshop sales, that's 6M units/year, call that 24M units over the lifespan of windows 7 since release in 2009.

So for every unit of Photshop, you have at least 27 units of windows. Factor in the 3.5X price and you still have about 8 equivalent units of windows for every photshop over which to amortize costs.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960199)

upgrading to CS6 from CS5 is 199 not 699.
A new CS6 license for photoshop is 699.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (5, Informative)

Galestar (1473827) | about 2 years ago | (#39960047)

I'm sorry, but even "Non-Genuine" copies of Windows still get security fixes. There is no comparison here.

Windows: Pirate our software, we'll still give you security fixes (although we might put a watermark asking you to stop pirating it)
Adobe: Buy our software, but you only get security fixes if you give us even more money.

Hell, MS gives security fixes even to XP until 2014 (13 years after its release). CS5 is less than 2 years old.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 2 years ago | (#39959925)

Too bad they don't do that for say, the DVD codec in Windows 8... :)

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960037)

Too bad they don't do that for say, the DVD codec in Windows 8... :)

Right, because a DVD codec is critical to keeping the security of an operating system up to date.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960165)

It would mean fewer people would pirate movies...

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960215)

Perhaps that's because you're only considering Windows (and maybe a few other big-name products)?
Not all MS products get that level of support.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (3, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#39959945)

You couldn't be more wrong. Nobody provides for longer support than Microsoft.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (0, Flamebait)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#39960071)

To be honest, I'm missing how this is *any* different from any of the major OS vendors (including linux distros). Security hole in Windows ME? Tough titties, buy a newer version. Security hole in Mac OS 10.3? Tough titties, buy a newer version. Security hole in REHL from 2008? Tough titties, pay us to fix it, or update.

Yes, saying CS5 is too old is a *bit* quick with the dropping of support, but it's really no different from any other vendor.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (4, Interesting)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | about 2 years ago | (#39960247)

CS6 is not available in some markets. And this is going to be a real killer for chunks of the corporate world. My pet artists are going to be on a sneakernet if they want to keep CS5 and are going to have to learn a new toolset in the meantime if they want to come back onto my network. (The one hooked up to the internet with support contracts and enterprise agreements and production web servers)

PAIN.

Re:Call it the Microsoft method (5, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#39960105)

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.

upgrade strategy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959737)

Well that's one business model to get people to upgrade/purchase your software.. I'm sure they were thinking " how do we get people to upgrade to a new version if we haven't innovated the product ? wait let's tell them about the security hole and tell them to upgrade"

Glad I'm using the GIMP... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959741)

It isn't in the league of PS, although it tends to do almost as much.

Adobe already got brickbatted about security... are they just trying to get clubbered again? Only difference is that not as many people will get nailed by Photoshop holes as opposed to a hole in Flash or Acrobat, mainly because spending $2000 or so for the CS suite is out of the price range of all but the dedicated artists.

Re:Glad I'm using the GIMP... (5, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#39959901)

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.

Re:Glad I'm using the GIMP... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959957)

No one who paid for CS5 is going to pirate CS6. They'll either keep using CS5, or their pay for an upgrade. This isn't really consumer-level software.

Your post is almost as dumb as the parent who things GIMP does almost as much as PS. What a gimp.

Re:Glad I'm using the GIMP... (3, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#39960129)

Actually, they now have a $50/month subscription service that allows install on 2 computers (non-simultaeneous use).

The $600/year comes to 2-3 times as much as keeping current ($300 year for every upgrade since CS3, or about $200 year to go from 3-6), but does not have the $1800 upfront cost, meaning for new purchasers are actually ahead for about 4-6 years. An upgrade from 5 -> 6 is $725, so it's 2 years before it's more expensive to use the subscription than purchasing the upgrade (the subscription comes with cloudiness, and the full master-collection, but I'm using Design and Web Premium prices).

I the the relatively low start-up cost ($50) of the subscription, is going to seriously cut-into piracy, and make them A LOT of money.

Re:Glad I'm using the GIMP... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#39960139)

I guess I wasnt going contrary to your point, but pointing out they are seriously experimenting with new models that are a lot less painful for new independent designers, and honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to upgrade from any version but 5.5 right now.

What a scam (5, Insightful)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | about 2 years ago | (#39959743)

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.

Re:What a scam (2)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#39959791)

Sure, except to use the software you agreed to the EULA where Adobe disclaimed themselves against any such defects. Good luck with that.

Re:What a scam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959807)

The EULA means nothing.

Re:What a scam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959953)

Sure, except to use the car you agreed to the EULA where Ford disclaimed themselves against any such defects. Good luck with that.

If software producers can get away with that, why cant car producers? Or the other way around, if nobody else can get away with self-absolving EULAs, why do software producers?

Re:What a scam (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#39959825)

No one's going to get killed if their PC gets pwned by malware in an image file. It's not like elevator control systems (see nearby Slashdot article) are running Photoshop. I don't see how they have any responsibility at all to even bother making their software secure. If you don't like it, don't buy their products.

Re:What a scam (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39960061)

Why not? Sony got in trouble for damaging people's PCs (making them unbootable or breaking installed software). Let's put Adobe in a courtroom too.

Of course Adobe could argue other companies do it. Apple and Microsoft do it when they stop filling holes in their old OSes, and tell you to upgrade to OS 10.7 or Win7. Mozilla does it when they abandon Firefox 4 or seaMonkey 2.0 and say, "You're on your own."

Ugh (4, Informative)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#39959747)

If this was a years-old version, I'd understand, but CS5 was the latest version until literally days ago!

Re:Ugh (3, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#39959823)

No, CS 5.5 was the latest version before 6. And considering CS5 came out April of 2010 it technically is a 'years-old version'. Still a scam, though.

Re:Ugh (2, Informative)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#39959987)

That's incorrect. Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, and Contribute weren't updated in CS5.5. See here [prodesigntools.com].

Re:Ugh (1, Interesting)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#39960127)

"If this was a years-old version, I'd understand"

Well, I don't.

If it's a years old version and *yet* after years of pushing security and bugfixes there're still more, it can only mean that the product they sold was basically cow shit and they deserve what it takes to protect it.

You don't want to push security updates forever? Damn easy: just don't push away shitty software.

Car analogy (2, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 2 years ago | (#39959751)

This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.

Re:Car analogy (-1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#39959841)

No, it's not. You're not going to die if your computer gets pwned. If you don't like it, don't buy Adobe products.

Re:Car analogy (5, Insightful)

The Infamous Grimace (525297) | about 2 years ago | (#39959965)

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.

Re:Car analogy (2)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#39960175)

"No, it's not. You're not going to die if your computer gets pwned. If you don't like it, don't buy Adobe products."

Well, how is it any different that in the case of life-threatening menaces? You don't want the new Sukhoi Superjet 100 because it tends to kill you? then don't buy it.

The point is that if a product produces an unforeseeble damage that can be tied to producer malice/miscalculus, then it is the producer the one to pay the bill. Bigger if there are deaths involved than in other case, but still to pay the bill.

Re:Car analogy (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about 2 years ago | (#39959849)

This is a terrible analogy. First of all, software doesn't come with a warranty. In fact don't most (or all) EULA's specifically say there is NO warranty, explicit or implied, that makes them liable for damages of any sort?

Also, if the "certain circumstances" for your brakes catching fire are "you don't know how to drive properly", that changes things, right?

Re:Car analogy (0)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 2 years ago | (#39959933)

If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.

I think it's a well-accepted practice that commercial software that is within its useful life gets security patches. Given that CS6 is barely off the press, I would think it reasonable that CS5 still gets at least some support.

Re:Car analogy (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#39960187)

If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.

horrible analogy. when you go back to the doctor with the infection, regardless of whether you followed instructions, the doctor charges you for that second visit. if you don't (or your insurance doesn't) pay, they don't have to treat it.

Re:Car analogy (2)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#39960207)

"In fact don't most (or all) EULA's specifically say there is NO warranty, explicit or implied, that makes them liable for damages of any sort?"

Yes, so they say.

And for the same price they could say you owe them your firstborn.

They saying what they want doesn't make it automatically legally bonding, didn't you know it?

Re:Car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959899)

This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.

That's assuming that Chevy was offering an upgrade service where you could upgrade your car. For Creative Suite the upgrade price is $525. So if Chevy offered an upgrade for $500 to the 2012 model I'd take it.

Re:Car analogy (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#39960017)

$500? In proportion to the total cost of a new car would be reasonable.

Its called a trade-in.

Re:Car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959981)

More like you buy a 2010 Chevy and in 2012 you find out there's a bug in the car that allows the doors to be unlocked by lightly tapping on the left tail light while pressing on the chevy emblem in the trunk, to which Chevy replies "hmm, yeah, that's pretty unfortunate, however we're happy to sell you a 2012 model that doesn't have that particular bug".

Re:Car analogy (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#39960195)

This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.

Your Adobe CS suite is under warranty and they are denying you a fix?

Awful nice program ya got there... (1)

killfixx (148785) | about 2 years ago | (#39959753)

Be a shame if something bad happened to it...

Wow... Actually sounds like our medical system. And just about every other "system" we have. Cars, houses, etc...

Wow, now that I think about it, that sucks.

Blech.

This is not new (0)

suutar (1860506) | about 2 years ago | (#39959761)

This is pretty much standard for stuff that's out of support. Try to get a security patch for Win98. That's not to say that I think Adobe is right to say CS5 is at that level, but this is hardly the first time that the solution to a bug has been 'buy the new version'.

Re:This is not new (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959827)

It's not like that. This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.

Re:This is not new (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39960033)

Indeed... this even lines up with Adobe's "trade in" policy -- and the prices for a Chevy and Adobe CS are starting to equalize too. Of course, having your DTP business go under due to getting hacked via CS isn't really comparable to dying at the wheel.

Re:This is not new (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 2 years ago | (#39959845)

The difference is that Microsoft supports multiple old versions of their OS. This is only one version more than the previous Adobe, and its only been a couple of years max since the other.

Re:This is not new (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 2 years ago | (#39959969)

Good point, though Adobe's gone one step further... Microsoft ends "mainstream" support fairly consistently (and longer than Adobe, to be sure), but extended support is not so bad (XP will be dead to the world in 2014).... I'll keep my XP machine running until it dies of old age (gotta play all my old games and the machine's woefully underpowered for Win 7.... heh.)

So in Adobe's case, they support only the current version, it seems... no patches.. gotta upgrade for those. If they offer free patches to other problems with CS 5.5, and this one is so systemic they had to rewrite it for CS 6.. makes you wonder who's running QC there at Adobe.

Re:This is not new (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39960223)

>>>This is only one version more than the previous Adobe

So basically it's like Apple, who does not support anything older than 10.6. They tell you to go buy the new OS (or if you are on a powerPC, a whole new PC).

Re:This is not new (3)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#39959909)

CS5 was released only 24 months ago [wikipedia.org], whereas Win98 was EOL'd when it was a little over 8 years old [wikipedia.org]. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they look pretty good in that particular comparison.

Re:This is not new (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#39960069)

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.

Re:This is not new (4, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39960007)

This is not only not new, but the exact same thing happened for CS4 -> CS5. I still use CS4, because I spent so much time waiting for CS5, which kept missing its release dates, that I bought CS4 instead. Then they wanted me, TWO MONTHS LATER, to shell out another $400 for what amounted to a security/bug fix, as I didn't need any of the new features included in CS5, just the bugs fixed -- and they weren't willing to fix the bugs.

At least at this point, all the attacks are targeting CS5, so CS4 isn't getting any worse than it already was....

I'm starting to think I should try migrating to another package again... anyone know of decent (yes, decent) equivalents for Photoshop, Distiller, InDesign and Illustrator? GIMP takes care of many of the Photoshop issues, but Inkscape isn't there yet, Ghostscript has the wrong feature set for me (and I don't have the time to write my own scripts to fix that), and nothing else I've found is integrating these other apps into one workflow package the way InDesign does, nor will they read InDesign templates or publish to industry workflows with proper color and bleed profiles.

Fuck you, Adobe! (5, Interesting)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 years ago | (#39959769)

Since I can't mod Adobe "-1 flamebait" I'll just say it again. Fuck you, Adobe! I'd like to go on record as stating that you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Re:Fuck you, Adobe! (4, Interesting)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 2 years ago | (#39959813)

Bump for agreement. Blow me Adobe...

Re:Fuck you, Adobe! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959879)

bumpin your bump, suck on my chocolate salty balls Adobe!

Re:Fuck you, Adobe! (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#39959875)

I think it's great, and I hope more proprietary software vendors choose this method of dealing with security problems. If you don't like it, you're free to not buy their products.

I don't have this problem with GIMP or various other open-source products I use.

Re:Fuck you, Adobe! (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39960097)

You also can't accomplish the same things on-budget and on-timeline with GIMP that you can with the full CS suite.

While I'm mightily annoyed with Adobe for how they handle bugfixes, the sheer size of their product means that a proper QA cycle would last them almost as long as their point release cycle. I don't really think there's any good solution -- the open source suites are too disjointed and just don't cut it still for most professional work (this is true... GIMP is really good at what it does, but it's a lossy image editing program, not part of a DTP workflow), and spending the time to create bugfixes and then QA them properly for previous versions of CS would just cost Adobe too much money, more than they'd be able to pass on to the consumer.

Re:Fuck you, Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959915)

Bad move, Adobe. But here's the real "fuck you" (and I don't think I'm alone): As the IT guy who oversees software purchases where I work, I guarantee that we won't be purchasing anything from Adobe until they have a better response to security issues than this one. Sad for those who are locked in to Photoshop.

And as a bonus you get more bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959771)

with the new features in the 'upgrade'.

Lifecycle Management (2)

devilsdean (888911) | about 2 years ago | (#39959785)

Interesting enough, the CS collections aren't listed on Adobe's products and Enterprise Technical Support Lifecycle Policy.

And today on Headline News: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959799)

Adobe doubles its lobbying budget, griping pirate rates have doubled for their newest software Photoshop CS6.

And they wonder why there's so much piracy ... (3, Insightful)

warren.oates (925589) | about 2 years ago | (#39959869)

Seriously. This is why people download pirated versions. Even if you have a paid version of something, the damned thing "phones home" every time you launch it, the bozos are so paranoid. You can disable this in /etc/hosts, but it's still indicative of greedy grubbing stupidity. If they charged a third of the price, they'd sell 3 times more copies. Look what Apple did with FCP -- they made it affordable (yes, I've read the complaints, but it works fine).

At least for once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959873)

people will know why they paid for an Adobe update.

My PAID Acrobat 8 has licensing issues. Once in a while, it complains the license is not valid and I cannot generate a pdf. Then it works again on the next day.
I called Adobe support twice. Their solution is to upgrade because they say they don't support it anymore.
I argued it is not a technical issue but a license issue. They don't care.

Nice.

Re:At least for once... (1)

Arker (91948) | about 2 years ago | (#39959961)

I'd call em back with my lawyer on the line. Or a friend who can do a passable imitation of a lawyer, at least. They wouldnt know the difference.

You're dealing with low-level drones that have to just follow the scripts they are given. Escalate it and force the issue. Companies setup ridiculous policies like this because they know it will cost the customer a lot more to get legal relief than it would be worth, and count on that. The moment they believe they are dealing with a customer who is stubborn and irrational enough to sue them anyway that attitude should do a 180.

Re:At least for once... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39960193)

My paid Acrobat 9 isn't much better -- some of the key features, such as Cleartype OCR, just don't work. Period. Adobe's response? Upgrade because they don't support it anymore (despite the fact that it didn't work when they sold it to me right off their own website).

I had that licensing issue with a previous version of an Adobe product, and ended up finding a cracked version of the product I'd purchased, just to get around it not working. This, to me, is entering MPAA territory of the pirates putting out a better product than the original producers.... It's a pain when you have to work so hard to do the right thing, only to find that it's a temporary solution.

I wonder if this is starting to enter class action "deceptive sales practices" territory?

And this is still on /.'s front page (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#39959893)

"Just released, and coming in at 370 MB in size, the Mac OS X 10.7.4 update includes general OS fixes, and addresses more than 30 security vulnerabilities. But aside from typical security fixes, Apple has made an interesting move in an effort to protect users. Through this latest software update, Safari 5.1.7 will now automatically disable older â" and typically more vulnerable â" versions of the Adobe Flash player. While many software vendors would prefer OS makers to keep their hands off their software, the move appears to be welcomed by Adobe, which has constantly battled vulnerabilities in its widely installed Flash Player."

Maybe Apple should disable Photoshop CS5 as well?

Re:And this is still on /.'s front page (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 2 years ago | (#39960079)

If Apple automatically disabled the latest versions of Flash Player as well, I'd actually buy one.

One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

registrations_suck (1075251) | about 2 years ago | (#39959897)

When you buy a piece a software (or "license it", if you will), you buy it as is, defects and all - typically with no warranty or merchantability for any particular purpose. From that standpoint, consider yourself lucky if you get someone to provide an update at no charge. Besides which - how long is a manufacturer supposed to be "on the hook" for supporting an old version? And a "0.01" version difference IS an old version. Frankly, I'm amazed at companies continuing to provide updates for older stuff. On the other hand - it is GOOD BUSINESS to do so, to at least some degree. What better way to bring on a unnecessary (even if meritless) lawsuit, than to get popped for not fixing known security issues, even in old software. Given the general uselessness of juries, you're just ripe for trouble. But failing to do good business (generally) isn't "wrong" from some kind of moral perspective....it is (often) just not very smart.

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | about 2 years ago | (#39959985)

Updates bugfixes.

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | about 2 years ago | (#39960003)

There should be a "not equal" sign in the middle. Bad Slashdot! Bad!

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960077)

Bah, no difference in this case. OP's thought process clearly doesn't include logic.

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about 2 years ago | (#39959991)

When you buy a piece a software (or "license it", if you will), you buy it as is, defects and all - typically with no warranty or merchantability for any particular purpose.

I'm usually on the side of commercial software houses in discussions on this site, but in this case I'm thinking adobe is a bit of an ass. And as far as any company goes, I'd love to see them come into court saying that their software has no "fitness for a particular purpose" after spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to convince people to buy their product for a particular purpose.

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#39960085)

If you provide a defective product in the marketplace, you can be held accountable regardless of any shrinkwrap text you provide with it. It is still subject to law with regard to the sale of goods (and/or services).

Re:One-time purchase vs. subscription (1)

AF_Cheddar_Head (1186601) | about 2 years ago | (#39960209)

That "old version" was the current version less than 2 months ago. I shelled out the money for my daughter to have a full legal copy of PS5 and now the only way to get the bug fix is to shell out more money for the latest version. My kids just got taught a great lesson by Adobe on why people pirate their products. I say BULLSHIT on this policy by Adobe.

Fixed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39959959)

>Adobe's fix? You need to pirate the upgrade to Photoshop CS6.

Fixed.

This is nothing new (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#39959971)

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.

Re:This is nothing new (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39960219)

" can't be ended and renewal depends solely on the price offered (not charged) so fuck you peon."
not true. A government agency can put out a request for a bid on something else.

Sounds About Right (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 years ago | (#39959975)

When I was a teenager, I knew that I wanted to be a software developer. I thought one of the coolest jobs would be to work at Adobe. How amazing would it be to add improvements to software used by famous graphic artists and video studios all over the world?

Now, I'm glad that I never even attempted to work there. They've become known for security holes all over the place in Flash and Acrobat, glacial pace of development, one poor design decision after the other, and no shortage of performance issues. It really is a shame how much they've stagnated, and in some cases regressed.

Nobody is going to exploit this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960043)

They're reporting the vulnerability because it's their policy, not because it's actively being exploited. The install base of Photoshop, like Gimp and thousands of other productivity applications, doesn't warrant an attacker's effort. There are countless of vulnerabilities in other applications like this that go unreported and unexploited.

If they didn't report it, nobody would care.

Re:Nobody is going to exploit this. (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#39960147)

No kidding.. I'm still using CS3, and I've never run into a virus/exploit for it. It's a 700-2500$ program... there can't possibly be as many people with CS as MS Office, outlook, firefox, or a dozen other programs that have holes discovered all the time.

A non story (0)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#39960045)

It's common practice to stop supporting versions that are two or more out of date. They just released CS6 so this would be perfectly normal. They aren't forcing an update they are simply saying they can't continue to support products that are out of date beyond a certain point.

Re:A non story (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39960233)

This isn't support. This is a big gaping FLAW in their product. So they should fix their flaw. They can patch it or give away CS6, I don't care.
This isn't a feature I woudl like. This isn't wanting more default objects. This is a major flaw.

Time to switch to Pixelmator or GIMP or something. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960055)

Fuck Adobe.

Great artists steal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960059)

Apple has been doing this for years. Most of the users in their support forums even seem to think that there is nothing wrong with it.
I find it a terrifying precedent.

Solution: The Gimp (2)

drewstah (110889) | about 2 years ago | (#39960109)

I made the switch to the Gimp years ago. I got tired of pirating Photoshop. Then, when I switched to Linux, Photoshop doesn't run on Linux. Lo and behold, Gimp is an easy install, and I learned that. Now that I've switched to Mac (for the desktop), I still use Gimp. Ooh, and there's a new version out, and the development version handles high-bit images!
 
  gimp.org [gimp.org]

Re:Solution: The Gimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960213)

Gimp is great indeed, for those cases where you need to open a PSD image file, nothing beats getting a pirated XP and PS image from thepiratebay.se, and installing those in a VM (virtualbox). Then do your thing in the VM and transfer the files back to your host OS via SSH/SCP/SFTP.

That's what I do, it works great.

Re:Solution: The Gimp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39960217)

ROFL

Photoshop has improved since PS beta 1. GIMP is not even close. GIMP is like an advanced version of MS Paint.

I bought CS5 Ultimate In March (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#39960119)

or maybe it was the last week of February. That's a mighty short support cycle for an expensive product. Perhaps a class action would be nice.

(note: I did not pay retail, but having essentially a 3 month supported period on a major software suite is pretty crappy)

Suckers. (4, Insightful)

loshwomp (468955) | about 2 years ago | (#39960131)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...