Does anyone know of any software that can crack a password protected .xls
file for free? I found this one... http://www.elcomsoft.com/aopr.html I
don't think it's worth it for one document though.

Thanks

Eric

[ExcelBanter AI]

Hi Eric,

I understand your concern about cracking a password-protected .xls file. However, I must inform you that it is not ethical to crack someone else's password-protected file without their permission.

If you have forgotten the password to your own .xls file, there are a few things you can try before resorting to cracking software. Here are some steps you can take:

1. Try to remember the password: This may seem obvious, but sometimes we forget passwords that are actually quite simple. Try to remember any passwords you may have used in the past or any words or numbers that are significant to you.
   
2. Use the "Forgot Password" featu If you are using Microsoft Excel, you can try using the "Forgot Password" feature. This will prompt you to enter your Microsoft account information and will send you a code to reset your password.
   
3. Use a password recovery tool: There are many password recovery tools available online that can help you recover your password. Some popular ones include PassFab for Excel, Stellar Phoenix Excel Password Recovery, and Excel Password Recovery Lastic. These tools use various methods to recover your password, such as brute force attacks, dictionary attacks, and mask attacks.

I hope this information helps you recover your password. Remember to always use ethical practices when dealing with password-protected files.

http://lastbit.com/excel/


--
y_not
------------------------------------------------------------------------
y_not's Profile: http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=19947
View this thread: http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=394742

Maybe you can ask the person that set the password. That will be free

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Eric Fehlhaber" wrote in message =
...
Does anyone know of any software that can crack a password protected =
..xls
file for free? I found this one... http://www.elcomsoft.com/aopr.html =
I
don't think it's worth it for one document though.
=20
Thanks
=20
Eric
=20

And since the file was protected in the first place, maybe you shouldn't be
trying to break into it.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
...
Maybe you can ask the person that set the password. That will be free

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Eric Fehlhaber" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of any software that can crack a password protected .xls
file for free? I found this one... http://www.elcomsoft.com/aopr.html I
don't think it's worth it for one document though.

Thanks

Eric

JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
And since the file was protected in the first place, maybe you shouldn't be
trying to break into it.
....

Then again if the file was created by person A at work, legally the
file would belong to A's employer. If A quit or was fired and is unable
or unwilling to give the password, and if the OP works for A's former
employer, the OP would have the legal right to crack the password.

That's the most common scenario claimed by people asking how to open
password-protected Excel workbooks, at least in the Excel newsgroups.
If it weren't legal to crack some files, it's hard to imagine why the
people providing the service for a fee aren't all in prison by now.

You mean that's what they *say* is the situation. I'm a skeptic. If it was
that situation, I'd think there'd have been some mention of the situation.
But when I read "What do you think of this password crack?" or "Where can I
find a free crack?", I don't immediately think, "Gee, some poor employer is
getting done over by a disgruntled former employee!"

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
ups.com...
JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
And since the file was protected in the first place, maybe you shouldn't
be
trying to break into it.
...

Then again if the file was created by person A at work, legally the
file would belong to A's employer. If A quit or was fired and is unable
or unwilling to give the password, and if the OP works for A's former
employer, the OP would have the legal right to crack the password.

That's the most common scenario claimed by people asking how to open
password-protected Excel workbooks, at least in the Excel newsgroups.
If it weren't legal to crack some files, it's hard to imagine why the
people providing the service for a fee aren't all in prison by now.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:51:46 +0100, JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote
(in article ):

You mean that's what they *say* is the situation. I'm a skeptic. If it was
that situation, I'd think there'd have been some mention of the situation.
But when I read "What do you think of this password crack?" or "Where can I
find a free crack?", I don't immediately think, "Gee, some poor employer is
getting done over by a disgruntled former employee!"



I'm with Jo on this one - I wouldn't assist anyone in cracking a passworded
document even if they say their intentions are honourable - I don't want to
be party to any nefarious dealings. I believe it was Beth who said that she
was once asked to crack a file and it turned out to be someone's personal
journal.

Take a look at

http://www.mcgimpsey.com/excel/fileandvbapwords.html

for a link to a less expensive solution.

In article ,
"Eric Fehlhaber" wrote:

Does anyone know of any software that can crack a password protected .xls
file for free? I found this one... http://www.elcomsoft.com/aopr.html I
don't think it's worth it for one document though.

Thanks

Eric

FWIW, I think JoAnn was rather out of line on this one. Assuming that
someone (who, BTW, posted under a real name and email address and who
has been a relatively frequent poster to many groups) is "nefarious" is
pretty harsh, not to mention horribly paternalistic.

Just based on my experience, it's far more likely that the OP has
forgotten the password on his own important file than that he was trying
to do something illegal - there was nothing in the original post to
indicate one way or the other, though the circumstantial evidence seems
heavily weighted toward legitimacy. (I don't know where JoAnn's "You
mean that's what they *say* is the situation" comes from, since the OP
*didn't* say.)

Unfortunately, XL's password protection is a sham. It ill-serves users
to withhold commonly available tools - it may even lead them to think
that XL's password protections are reliable, when they most definitely
are not.

I assist people on these groups because I like to, not because of what
they might do with it. I'm not going to withhold commonly available
information about passwords from a user just because they might be
dishonest, any more than I worry about whether someone uses that nifty
SUMPRODUCT() formula that I gave them to further their embezzlement.

I've posted a method of bypassing internal password controls to my site
as a convenience - the macro was being posted several times a week to
the newsgroups anyway, so anyone with the sense to Google could find
them.

Likewise, if the OP had chosen to Google for a password crack, he'd have
found hundreds of posts recommending cheap commercial solutions for file
passwords (I don't know of any free ones that are worth anything for
reasonably long passwords).


In article ,
Sarah Balfour wrote:

I'm with Jo on this one - I wouldn't assist anyone in cracking a passworded
document even if they say their intentions are honourable - I don't want to
be party to any nefarious dealings. I believe it was Beth who said that she
was once asked to crack a file and it turned out to be someone's personal
journal.

JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
You mean that's what they *say* is the situation. I'm a skeptic. If it was
that situation, I'd think there'd have been some mention of the situation.
But when I read "What do you think of this password crack?" or "Where can I
find a free crack?", I don't immediately think, "Gee, some poor employer is
getting done over by a disgruntled former employee!"
....

Some requests are obviously illegal, e.g., "where can I download Office
for free?" When I feel like replying to those requests, I point out
they're illegal. Password cracking isn't necessarily illegal. Why
assume OPs have illegal intent?

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

Password cracking isn't necessarily illegal. Why assume OPs have illegal
intent?

Why assume they don't have illegal intent? It seems to me you'd have to at
least consider the possibility of illegal intent and there's no way to tell
on Usenet if you're being told the truth or a story, is there?


--
David R. Norton MVP

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
Password cracking isn't necessarily illegal. Why assume OPs have illegal
intent?

Why assume they don't have illegal intent? It seems to me you'd have to at
least consider the possibility of illegal intent and there's no way to tell
on Usenet if you're being told the truth or a story, is there?

No, there's no way to prove anyone else's intentions, on Usenet or in
the real world. So does one walk around assuming everyone else is a
criminal?

so, for those whose first impression is that everyone else is a
criminal, how should one deal with the OP's request? Certainly not
provide the requested advice. That won't do! Remain silent (i.e., just
don't reply)? For the busy-body sorts, that won't do either! The
obvious answer is to become a net-nanny! How silly of me not to have
realized that.

What benefit to anyone is there in presuming illegal intent, given that
the cracks are commonly available and cheap? Especially since the OP, in
this case, presumably used his real name and address, despite MS's
warnings not to?

If one presumes illegal intent, what should be done about such posts -
does one have a duty to report solicitation to commit a crime? To what
jurisdiction? Does one also have to report anyone who answers as a
co-conspirator?

IMO, it's better to freely admit that Office document protection schemes
are not secure, and direct people to the available information. At the
very least, being honest about the "security" of Office documents may
educate the OP and lurkers that they shouldn't rely on Office protection
for documents in which confidentiality is important.

The presumption of illegal intent simply slows, or prevents, the ability
of legitimate users to recover documents.



In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

Why assume they don't have illegal intent? It seems to me you'd have to at
least consider the possibility of illegal intent and there's no way to tell
on Usenet if you're being told the truth or a story, is there?

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
Password cracking isn't necessarily illegal. Why assume OPs have illegal
intent?

Why assume they don't have illegal intent? It seems to me you'd have to at
least consider the possibility of illegal intent and there's no way to tell
on Usenet if you're being told the truth or a story, is there?

No, there's no way to prove anyone else's intentions, on Usenet or in
the real world. So does one walk around assuming everyone else is a
criminal?

No, but one should consider the possibility.

so, for those whose first impression is that everyone else is a
criminal, how should one deal with the OP's request? Certainly not
provide the requested advice. That won't do! Remain silent (i.e., just
don't reply)? For the busy-body sorts, that won't do either! The
obvious answer is to become a net-nanny! How silly of me not to have
realized that.

How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response
would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone
on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly.


--
David R. Norton MVP

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
....
How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response
would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send someone
on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly.
....

MVP stading for most vacuous posting?

The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop
would save the OP money?

Who's posting idiocy?!

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
...
How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response
would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send
someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act
accordingly.
...

MVP stading for most vacuous posting?

The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop
would save the OP money?

Who's posting idiocy?!

You are. Again...

--
David R. Norton MVP

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
David R. Norton MVP wrote...
...
How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response
would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send
someone on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act
accordingly.
...

MVP stading for most vacuous posting?

The OP wanted to save money. A housecall from a local computer shop
would save the OP money?

Who's posting idiocy?!

You are. Again...

Fine. I'm the idiot who realizes that honest people seeking to save
money wouldn't bother to follow your oh so sensible advice, and
criminals with half a brain more than you wouldn't bother for different
reasons.

You're the genius who believes money is no object after the OP has
indicated that it is. Apparently you know what the OP wants/needs
better than the OP himself. You must be able to provide detailed
responses to posting with just the word Help in the subject line and no
body, too.

If you want to call what I'm writing idiocy, go ahead. Definitions in
Usenet is maleable. Myself, I'd call it scorn.

JE McGimpsey wrote in:

What benefit to anyone is there in presuming illegal intent, given that
the cracks are commonly available and cheap?

OK, so the availability of Office 2003 in Warez groups means that robbing
the legitimate publisher of the software is all right?

I can't see the ready availability of cracks is justification for using
them.

Especially since the OP, in this case, presumably used his real name and
address, despite MS's warnings not to?

And how do you know he used his real name? I notice while you're defending
him you use the word "presumably" so is it possible you also have some
doubts?

IMO, it's better to freely admit that Office document protection schemes
are not secure, and direct people to the available information.

MHO differs from yours. Next next time I see some disreputable person trying
to open a new luxury car with a coat hanger should I just assume it's his car
and he has a right to it? Isn't that pretty similar to what you're saying?


--
David R. Norton MVP

MHO differs from yours.

IMO, we should call a halt to this thread. It isn't helping the original
poster at all.

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP]
http://www.echosvoice.com

I did say I was a skeptic. And I never said that this particular poster said
anything about a situation. All I did was state my opinion. And you stated
yours. That's cool. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with me.
I'd have to change my mind about things - and then so would everyone else.
ARGH!!! :-)

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
FWIW, I think JoAnn was rather out of line on this one. Assuming that
someone (who, BTW, posted under a real name and email address and who
has been a relatively frequent poster to many groups) is "nefarious" is
pretty harsh, not to mention horribly paternalistic.

Just based on my experience, it's far more likely that the OP has
forgotten the password on his own important file than that he was trying
to do something illegal - there was nothing in the original post to
indicate one way or the other, though the circumstantial evidence seems
heavily weighted toward legitimacy. (I don't know where JoAnn's "You
mean that's what they *say* is the situation" comes from, since the OP
*didn't* say.)

Unfortunately, XL's password protection is a sham. It ill-serves users
to withhold commonly available tools - it may even lead them to think
that XL's password protections are reliable, when they most definitely
are not.

I assist people on these groups because I like to, not because of what
they might do with it. I'm not going to withhold commonly available
information about passwords from a user just because they might be
dishonest, any more than I worry about whether someone uses that nifty
SUMPRODUCT() formula that I gave them to further their embezzlement.

I've posted a method of bypassing internal password controls to my site
as a convenience - the macro was being posted several times a week to
the newsgroups anyway, so anyone with the sense to Google could find
them.

Likewise, if the OP had chosen to Google for a password crack, he'd have
found hundreds of posts recommending cheap commercial solutions for file
passwords (I don't know of any free ones that are worth anything for
reasonably long passwords).


In article ,
Sarah Balfour wrote:

I'm with Jo on this one - I wouldn't assist anyone in cracking a
passworded
document even if they say their intentions are honourable - I don't want
to
be party to any nefarious dealings. I believe it was Beth who said that
she
was once asked to crack a file and it turned out to be someone's personal
journal.

Excellent advice, David! But of course, no one ever wants to actually pay
for such services.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"David R. Norton MVP" wrote in message
...
(snip)


How silly of you to have posted the above idiocy. The sensible response
would be to tell the OP to contact a local computer shop who can send
someone
on site, verify the legitimacy of the request and act accordingly.


--
David R. Norton MVP

In article ,
"JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]" wrote:

And I never said that this particular poster said anything about a
situation.

Sorry - it appeared to me that your statement was directed at the OP. I
see now that it was in response to Harlan's straw man. My apologies.

You did, however, rather strongly imply that the OP didn't have the
right to "break into" the file, though you also qualified it with
"maybe". :-)

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

OK, so the availability of Office 2003 in Warez groups means that robbing
the legitimate publisher of the software is all right?

Please. The situation is not even remotely the same. The availability of
a commercial package that is never distributed via warez sites means
that downloading Office 2003 from those sites is presumably always
illegal.

There are, however, many legitimate uses for removing passwords. There
is nothing in any license agreement, much less law (at least in the US),
that restricts someone's ability to access files that they own or are
legally entitled to, by removing the password protection. There are
companies that have provided these legitimate services for decades, and
there have been free methods for many protections for nearly as long.

Given that even a moderately close reading of the Office license
agreement makes it clear that Microsoft doesn't represent that any
Office application is fit for any particular purpose, it's clear that MS
is not claiming that removing the protection violates its license, or
even that it's wrong.

The only other reason it would be illegal is if the person removing the
protection doesn't have the legal right to the information. That is not
a technical issue, and given that there are legitimate reasons for
removing the protection, I see absolutely no reason for people not to
avail themselves of legal services.

The fact that some misguided people rely on Office protection schemes to
keep their information secure, despite Microsoft's own explicit claim to
the contrary, and despite the plainly available free and commercial
methods of removing them, shouldn't limit the legal users from
recovering their information.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

The sensible response would be to tell the OP to contact a local
computer shop who can send someone on site, verify the legitimacy of
the request and act accordingly.

"Sensible"? Who would you suggest is regulating the local computer
shops? What makes *them* trustworthy? What criteria would they use? What
if, as in many parts of my state, the "local" computer shop is 50+ miles
away?

I just called two local computer shops, and asked them how to bypass my
Word and Excel protection. None of them knew, nor were they interested
in making a house call. Nor could they tell me how they would determine
that someone's request was legitimate.

Sensible? Lunacy!

All you've done is attached an intermediary with a price tag to the
same solution that was posted here.

Echo S wrote...
IMO, we should call a halt to this thread. It isn't helping the original
poster at all.

So? Where is it written that all responses in every thread must benefit
the OP? For that matter threads such as these show which respondents
know what they're talking about only in their narrow fields of
expertise and are otherwise clueless.

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
JE McGimpsey wrote in:
What benefit to anyone is there in presuming illegal intent, given that
the cracks are commonly available and cheap?

OK, so the availability of Office 2003 in Warez groups means that robbing
the legitimate publisher of the software is all right?

I can't see the ready availability of cracks is justification for using
them.
....

As even you have pointed out by your ridiculous suggestion for an
on-site support call, there are occasions on which it's legitimate to
remove passwords. When are there legitimate occasions to download
commercial software?

Your argument is similar to saying that because handguns are often used
to commit violent crimes, one should never tell anyone where the
nearest gun shop is located, and besides it's illegal to buy .50
machine guns!

Especially since the OP, in this case, presumably used his real name and
address, despite MS's warnings not to?

And how do you know he used his real name? I notice while you're defending
him you use the word "presumably" so is it possible you also have some
doubts?

Did you miss the word 'presumably' or do you not understand its
meaning?

The point is that you can either assume posters have legitimate or
illegitimate intent. If you believe they have illegitimate intent, you
won't prevent those of us who assume legitimate intent from replying.
So what is the point of your participation in these cases? Parading
your own self-impotant sense of moral rectitude would seem to be the
only purpose served.

MHO differs from yours. Next next time I see some disreputable person trying
to open a new luxury car with a coat hanger should I just assume it's his car
and he has a right to it? Isn't that pretty similar to what you're saying?

Not quite accurate in this case.

The analogy would be closer to Eric can't get into a particular car, he
hasn't stated explicitly that it's his car, and it's pretty clear he
can't open it on his own. He doesn't like the price quoted by Moe's
Garage to open the lock and has asked for cheaper alternatives. Some
other posters have directed him to AAA. Presumably AAA would want to
remain in business so would check that Eric had legal standing to open
the file in order to avoid being criminal accessories.

Despite this obvious chain of reasoning, in gallop the net-nannies to
claim that this COULD be illegal, so no one should offer to help Eric.

JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
Excellent advice, David! But of course, no one ever wants to actually pay
for such services.
....

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file? Now specialists in the
field would because they'd know their livelihoods depended on it, but
the average 24-year-old selling iPods and blank CD-Rs?

Are either you or David familiar with how easy it is to make any file
appear to below to any person? A could open a password-protected
computer file in a hex editor then save it to a harddrive or network
drive, thus changing the file ownership information. For files under
64KB, Windows still provides DEBUG.COM which can be used to do this.
Nuts, A could simply e-mail the file to himself from a web mail account
(which won't provide any ownership tags Outlook/Exchange might) and
detach the received copy. Granted the creation and modification dates
would be the same (a dead give-away), so use a touch utility a day or
so afterwards to change the access and modification times. How would
the proverbial computer shop employee be able to tell anything?

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's
original concern.

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP] wrote...
Excellent advice, David! But of course, no one ever wants to actually pay
for such services.
...

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication, going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's
original concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.



--
David R. Norton MVP

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in:
....
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication, going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

So all an IP thief would need to do is make a copy of a file, take it
home, copy it onto his own PC, call the shop and tell them his impish
nephew Bobby was playoing around on his PC and password protected his
customer list? And that proves legal access how?

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's
original concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.

Perhaps cost is immaterial to you.

Did you read the OP? Cost seems to have been the OP's primary reason
for posting. *IF* there were free document password crackers, then the
OP wouldn't have to pay anything, would he? Well, perhaps online
connect time if he isn't on a fixed rate plan, and if you want to be
extremely exacting, there would be some opportunity cost to the OP's
time spent downloading and using up disk storage for such software. But
the cost would be a pittance if there were free software to do this.

Beyond that, the cost of on-site service would likely exceed the cost
of the on-line service the OP thought too expensive.

Other than displaying your self-conceived sense of moral superiority,
why did you bother participating in this thread? Clearly not to help
the OP.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered
many? That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that removing
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if you
script it).

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take
on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than
cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an
interest in providing that service?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"? If you're talking liability to the computer shop for an
improperly unprotected file, a prudent computer shop owner would need a
heck of a lot of assurance, at a similarly inflated price.

going into a private home and seeing a PC
simply requires asking.

Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for
the asking?

You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more than
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! File
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to the
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

"Harlan Grove" wrote in:

David R. Norton MVP wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote in: ...
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

No, you're just being argumentative.

So all an IP thief would need to do is make a copy of a file, take it
home, copy it onto his own PC, call the shop and tell them his impish
nephew Bobby was playoing around on his PC and password protected his
customer list? And that proves legal access how?

Pretty hard to discuss anything with one who won't read or comprehend, we'll
drop this one. But it's really not that difficult.

But at least you recognized the issue of cost, which was the OP's original
concern.

And you fail to realize the major point that cost is completely immaterial.
The OP will have to pay whatever the going rate may be.

Perhaps cost is immaterial to you.

It's not immaterial to me, it's immaterial to this discussion. Everyone
would like to have everything free, if that's not possible then you have to
pay whatever the price might be.

Other than displaying your self-conceived sense of moral superiority,
why did you bother participating in this thread? Clearly not to help
the OP.

No, just to point out your very disturbing lack of morals. But you probably
won't understand that, either. You'll make some more silly comments about
"net nannies" and continue to belittle people who don't believe in stealing.

I'm done with you.

--
David R. Norton MVP

JE McGimpsey wrote in:

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords from
Office documents?

Every one I've ever encountered.

You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered
many?

As stated, everyone I've ever encountered.

That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that removing
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if you
script it).

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take
on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than
cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an
interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A has
legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of experience.

It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in
authority is reasonable indication

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

going into a private home and seeing a PC simply requires asking.

Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for
the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more than
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! File
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to the
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

Above is completely unrelated to the discussion.

One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and asks
this group how to remove the password protection. Several people jump right
in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the file.

That's completely unacceptable. Anyone who password protects a file does so
for a reason and someone asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.
If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves but I know you won't be...

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

--
David R. Norton MVP

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. =
Now he said that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous =
answers on how to get around it and open it.=20

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on =
how to get rid of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some =
of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3 yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that =
made National and International headlines when he hacked =
IBM,MS,Governments etc.

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:
=20
And how many computer shop employees know how to remove passwords =
from
Office documents?
=20
Every one I've ever encountered.
=20
You've asked at every computer shop? Or have you just not encountered=20
many? That differs significantly from my experience. The shops I work=20
with have nobody who's trained to do so. None of them knew that =
removing=20
a VBA password takes about 30 seconds with a hex editor (1 second if =
you=20
script it).
=20
How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to take =

on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do more than =

cursory background checks on their employees? How many even have an=20
interest in providing that service?
=20
How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A =
has
legal standing to open any particular file?
=20
It's not difficult, going into a company site and having a person in=20
authority is reasonable indication
=20
Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in=20
authority"? If you're talking liability to the computer shop for an=20
improperly unprotected file, a prudent computer shop owner would need =
a=20
heck of a lot of assurance, at a similarly inflated price.
=20
going into a private home and seeing a PC=20
simply requires asking.
=20
Now that's just laughable. So the person (not in authority) at the=20
company site takes the file home, and can have it unprotected just for =

the asking?
=20
You're trying to portray Office protection schemes as somehow more =
than=20
they are - more than Microsoft claims them to be. Protection is not=20
absolute - XL's worksheet and workbook protection are useful to keep=20
honest users from accidently overwriting formulas, that's *it*!!!! =
File=20
protection can keep casual snoopers out of the file, but even that=20
doesn't encrypt it - with a hex editor and a reasonable guess as to =
the=20
data layout and tokenization, you can reconstruct a workbook without=20
unprotecting it. It's a lot more work, of course...

Nice fairy tale.

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on Yahoo,
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments etc.".

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any
long-term restriction on computer use.

His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out a
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with
anything?

Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly
didn't set much of a precedent.

How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit
be served?


In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:

Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft server
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the time.

There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the Content
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now he said
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers on how
to get around it and open it.

Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story that a
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to get rid
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.

The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.

Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for another 3
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made National and
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

"David R. Norton MVP" wrote in message
...

"Harlan Grove" wrote in: ...

Then your experience is either severely outdated or unrepresentative.

No, you're just being argumentative.


What Harlan? Never! <g
--
Sandy


Replace@mailinator with @tiscali.co.uk

Not a fairy tale at all and that teenager lives directly across the =
street from me here in Montreal (Ile Bizard). I was also quizzed by the =
authorities since my son is friends with him and he came over often and =
I was working with computers for a living. I had my systems at the time =
removed by the RCMP\FBI\Local Police and was retuned to me after 3 =
weeks. Was very embarrassing to all.=20

Like I said you never know who is who and what is what.

--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
Nice fairy tale.
=20
MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".
=20
He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use.
=20
His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out =
a=20
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with=20
anything?
=20
Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free=20
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find=20
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly=20
didn't set much of a precedent.
=20
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served?
=20
=20
In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:
=20
Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server =20
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.
=20
There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content=20
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now =
he said=20
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers =
on how=20
to get around it and open it.=20
=20
Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a=20
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to =
get rid=20
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.
=20
The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.
=20
Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3=20
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made =
National and=20
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

My answers are in line

MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".

Jeff was 14 yrs old at the time. And yes he did hack in there. The =
records on his HD when examined did show. That is why you had this =
commotion with top US law enforcement agencies also coming here. This is =
on record which is public and can be viewed here at the Palais of =
Justice by anyone

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use

Yes it did. He has 3 more yrs left. He cannot come over here but my son =
goes over to his house.

He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20

That was house detention and was able to go out for only schooling. His =
probation was for 4 yrs.


How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served

Microsoft Canada was sued. Microsoft Canada has since been closed and is =
no longer here.
--=20
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message =
...
Nice fairy tale.
=20
MafiaBoy was a Canadian teenager that perpetrated a DOS attack on =
Yahoo,=20
Dell, eBay, Amazon.com, etc. - not "hack(ing) IBM,MS,Governments =
etc.".
=20
He was sentenced to 8 months in detention plus one year of probation,=20
which would have been up 2 years ago. His sentence didn't include any=20
long-term restriction on computer use.
=20
His dad, btw, was arrested the same day as MafiaBoy was for taking out =
a=20
contract on a business colleague. Might that have anything to do with=20
anything?
=20
Given that Content Advisor password removers are still sold, and free=20
hacks are still posted, if your 95 anecdote is true (I couldn't find=20
anything via Google, though it didn't sound unfamiliar), it certainly=20
didn't set much of a precedent.
=20
How does one sue a newsgroup, anyway? Where and to whom would the suit =

be served?
=20
=20
In article ,
"Peter Foldes" wrote:
=20
Sorry to jump in here but how many of you remember the old Microsoft =
server =20
newsgroup MSNNEWS. This goes back to 95. It was moderated at the =
time.
=20
There was a post there in 95 where someone posted that he set up the =
Content=20
Advisor so his kids will not be able to get into certain sites. Now =
he said=20
that he forgot the Password and needed help. He had numerous answers =
on how=20
to get around it and open it.=20
=20
Well about a month later in the newspapers and TV there was the story =
that a=20
Father is suing MS and that newsgroup for telling his child on how to =
get rid=20
of that password . BTW he won the case and a large some of money.
=20
The point is you do not know who is who and what is what.
=20
Today that child that did that is not allowed near a computer for =
another 3=20
yrs. His nickname was the Mafia Boy. Yep the same one that made =
National and=20
International headlines when he hacked IBM,MS,Governments etc.

One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and
asks this group how to remove the password protection. Several
people jump right in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the
file.

OK. Say someone asks if the OP had a right to the file. The OP replies
"yes, it's mine". Now what?

That's completely unacceptable.

Because...?? Are we obligated to ask questions that have no probative
value? Obligated by what or whom?

Anyone who password protects a file does so for a reason and someone
asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.

Assuming you meant "suspect", your syllogism is missing a premise. In
the *vast* majority of cases I've encountered, both in the newsgroups
and in my business, someone asking for help in removing protection has
a legitimate reason for doing so. That makes them in need of
assistance, not suspect.

If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Assumption of facts not in evidence. Why do you *assume* the OP isn't
the owner?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

I can't vouch for anyone else, nor can I read their minds, but I didn't
assume anything one way or the other, because it doesn't matter. I'm
willing to help the legitimate user, and if the user has an illegitimate
purpose, the information I give is no more than what is already readily
available.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

Assuming you meant "relevant", you've still made no explanation for why
a computer shop should have any special authority or competency to
determine ownership of a file.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to
take on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do
more than cursory background checks on their employees? How many
even have an interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers

You've checked that they're willing to assume the liability? I'm not
sure that speaks very well of the shop owner's judgement. How much do
they charge for the service?

What kind of check do they do on their employees?

but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

Guess your time isn't particularly valuable. What about those that live
100+ miles from the nearest "shop"?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A
has legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of
experience.

That's just daft. What is it about computer shop experience that gives
*any* special ability to determine legal issues? Most of the computer
repair people I know are no less susceptible to social engineering than
anyone else. As a small business owner, I wouldn't want to bet the
equity of my company on a repairman's credulity. The training I'd have
to give them wouldn't justify the expense, so I wouldn't provide that
service.

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

Have you ever run your own business? What authorization criteria did
your bonding company use when deciding whether to bond you for a job?
How about your insurance company - if there's risk involved in providing
the service, do you think they're going to insure you for professional
liability if you don't have some criterion for determining who can
authorize you to break the protection?

If you think this is ridiculous, then the corollary is that you think
there isn't much risk involved for the shop owner, which undermines your
insistence that there must be some additional layer between the user and
help.

So the person (not in authority) at the company site takes the file
home, and can have it unprotected just for the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

And here I thought you were suspicious. That claim isn't backed by every
day experience - people of moderate intelligence and experience are
socially engineered hourly. How much are you willing to bet that I
couldn't convince that moderately intelligent repairman that my claim is
valid?

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

Replies on newsgroups aren't necessarily personal - I'm mostly replying
to your argument, not you.

I just don't answer questions about how to break into files or where to find
bogus product IDs. There's no way to tell if the OP is telling the truth or
not when they say it's their file/program. If someone else chooses to
respond, that's their choice. I choose not to take the chance of aiding and
abetting.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
One more time, the point is someone has a password protected file and
asks this group how to remove the password protection. Several
people jump right in w/o ever asking if the OP has any right to the
file.

OK. Say someone asks if the OP had a right to the file. The OP replies
"yes, it's mine". Now what?

That's completely unacceptable.

Because...?? Are we obligated to ask questions that have no probative
value? Obligated by what or whom?

Anyone who password protects a file does so for a reason and someone
asking to breaking that protection is suspicious.

Assuming you meant "suspect", your syllogism is missing a premise. In
the *vast* majority of cases I've encountered, both in the newsgroups
and in my business, someone asking for help in removing protection has
a legitimate reason for doing so. That makes them in need of
assistance, not suspect.

If the OP had a right to the file, why didn't he ask the owner for the
password?

Assumption of facts not in evidence. Why do you *assume* the OP isn't
the owner?

Try reviewing the thread, the OP never ever stated any reason for wanting
to
crack the file but some here just assumed he had a right to do so.

I can't vouch for anyone else, nor can I read their minds, but I didn't
assume anything one way or the other, because it doesn't matter. I'm
willing to help the legitimate user, and if the user has an illegitimate
purpose, the information I give is no more than what is already readily
available.

In article ,
"David R. Norton MVP" wrote:

The competency or lack thereof of the shops you've encountered isn't
relative
to the discussion. There are shops that can do so.

Assuming you meant "relevant", you've still made no explanation for why
a computer shop should have any special authority or competency to
determine ownership of a file.

How many are willing to make house calls? How many are willing to
take on the liability for damages, including bonding? How many do
more than cursory background checks on their employees? How many
even have an interest in providing that service?

Every one I've ever encountered for businesses, not many for personal
computers

You've checked that they're willing to assume the liability? I'm not
sure that speaks very well of the shop owner's judgement. How much do
they charge for the service?

What kind of check do they do on their employees?

but it's not a major problem to haul a single box into the shop.

Guess your time isn't particularly valuable. What about those that live
100+ miles from the nearest "shop"?

How many computer shop employees know how to tell whether person A
has legal standing to open any particular file?

There's nothing difficult about it for anyone with a bit of
experience.

That's just daft. What is it about computer shop experience that gives
*any* special ability to determine legal issues? Most of the computer
repair people I know are no less susceptible to social engineering than
anyone else. As a small business owner, I wouldn't want to bet the
equity of my company on a repairman's credulity. The training I'd have
to give them wouldn't justify the expense, so I wouldn't provide that
service.

Hmmm...what authority is necessary? How do I know someone is "in
authority"?

Ridiculous comeback and you know it.

Have you ever run your own business? What authorization criteria did
your bonding company use when deciding whether to bond you for a job?
How about your insurance company - if there's risk involved in providing
the service, do you think they're going to insure you for professional
liability if you don't have some criterion for determining who can
authorize you to break the protection?

If you think this is ridiculous, then the corollary is that you think
there isn't much risk involved for the shop owner, which undermines your
insistence that there must be some additional layer between the user and
help.

So the person (not in authority) at the company site takes the file
home, and can have it unprotected just for the asking?

Nope. Not if the repair person has moderate intelligence and experience.

And here I thought you were suspicious. That claim isn't backed by every
day experience - people of moderate intelligence and experience are
socially engineered hourly. How much are you willing to bet that I
couldn't convince that moderately intelligent repairman that my claim is
valid?

Don't bother replying, I'm done with you.

Replies on newsgroups aren't necessarily personal - I'm mostly replying
to your argument, not you.