4 ms·

Old file formats have security vulnerabilities. The online version of Word is designed for docx only, although it can open certain binary documents.

o11c 3y ago
Fundamentally, a data file format can't have vulnerabilities. At most it can be prone to vulnerabilities, but more often it's just that popular implementations are bad.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Sorry, the Word parser does and Microsoft did not feel it important enough to fix as their focus is on OpenXml formats.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Then that's on Microsoft. There's no fundamental reason why a secure parser can't be written for old formats.
    - nullindividual 3y ago
      Why would Microsoft do that? It makes zero financial sense to continue with a parser that may need to be rewritten from scratch for a ~30 year old format.
      - genewitch 3y ago
        they can do what they want, and i'll continue on my 2 decade long decision to never give microsoft money, for anything. Same way i'll never give propellerhead another dime, or Plex[0], or any of these other consumer-hostile companies. I don't trust MS to maintain software, even though as far as that goes, they're better than a lot of companies that have been writing software for decades. "time marches on" is silly when we have millions of times the compute, storage, and transit speeds available to us. I also don't see why people see the need to shill for multi-billion dollar companies. What microsoft should have done is trademark a new name for their word processor the second they made the decision to not open word .doc from older versions. That way there's no confusion. [0] having a hard time remembering the name/company of the software i purchased for in-house streaming over a decade ago. Plex is still a hassle to use for in-house streaming compared to the "service" or whatever they're selling. Unfortunately Synology seems to have grown weary of releasing a version of their client for every newfangled device that comes to market, so i'm stuck with plex on my TV; that is, unless i want to use a stick/set-top/computer attached to it.
        nullindividual 3y ago
        > I don't trust MS to maintain software Then you should champion removal of any "old" software they have that is under maintenance-only status. You wouldn't want security vulnerabilities to go unfixed, would you? > What microsoft should have done is trademark a new name for their word processor the second they made the decision to not open word .doc from older versions. That way there's no confusion. That makes zero sense. Word is still Word. It performs the same tasks (and more) as Word 1.0 did. And Word today still reads/writes .doc, just not versions that are that old.
kelnos 3y ago
No they don't. Parsers can have security vulnerabilities, but you can fix those, and there's little reason why a parser for an old format would have more vulnerabilities than for a new format. Some formats can also have certain (intended) features that have security implications, but parsers can choose to disable them if they are concerned.

o11c 3y ago

Fundamentally, a data file format can't have vulnerabilities. At most it can be prone to vulnerabilities, but more often it's just that popular implementations are bad.

nullindividual 3y ago
Sorry, the Word parser does and Microsoft did not feel it important enough to fix as their focus is on OpenXml formats.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Then that's on Microsoft. There's no fundamental reason why a secure parser can't be written for old formats.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Why would Microsoft do that? It makes zero financial sense to continue with a parser that may need to be rewritten from scratch for a ~30 year old format.
    - genewitch 3y ago
      they can do what they want, and i'll continue on my 2 decade long decision to never give microsoft money, for anything. Same way i'll never give propellerhead another dime, or Plex[0], or any of these other consumer-hostile companies. I don't trust MS to maintain software, even though as far as that goes, they're better than a lot of companies that have been writing software for decades. "time marches on" is silly when we have millions of times the compute, storage, and transit speeds available to us. I also don't see why people see the need to shill for multi-billion dollar companies. What microsoft should have done is trademark a new name for their word processor the second they made the decision to not open word .doc from older versions. That way there's no confusion. [0] having a hard time remembering the name/company of the software i purchased for in-house streaming over a decade ago. Plex is still a hassle to use for in-house streaming compared to the "service" or whatever they're selling. Unfortunately Synology seems to have grown weary of releasing a version of their client for every newfangled device that comes to market, so i'm stuck with plex on my TV; that is, unless i want to use a stick/set-top/computer attached to it.
      - nullindividual 3y ago
        > I don't trust MS to maintain software Then you should champion removal of any "old" software they have that is under maintenance-only status. You wouldn't want security vulnerabilities to go unfixed, would you? > What microsoft should have done is trademark a new name for their word processor the second they made the decision to not open word .doc from older versions. That way there's no confusion. That makes zero sense. Word is still Word. It performs the same tasks (and more) as Word 1.0 did. And Word today still reads/writes .doc, just not versions that are that old.

kelnos 3y ago

No they don't. Parsers can have security vulnerabilities, but you can fix those, and there's little reason why a parser for an old format would have more vulnerabilities than for a new format. Some formats can also have certain (intended) features that have security implications, but parsers can choose to disable them if they are concerned.