Flaw Finders Lay Seige to Microsoft Office 149
An anonymous reader writes "The Register is reporting that bug reports on the latest iteration of Microsoft Office are certainly keeping the Redmond firm's programmers busy. So far this year 24 flaws have been found by outside researchers, more than six times the number found in all of 2005. From the article: 'The deluge of vulnerabilities for the Office programs - Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and, for professional users, Access -signals a shift in the focus of vulnerability research and underscores the impact of flaw-finding tools known as fuzzers. The vulnerabilities in Office also highlight the threat that such files, if remained unchecked, can pose to a corporate network. Not since the days of macro viruses and Melissa have Office files posed such a danger to computer security.'"
OpenOffice needs this too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that - part of MS problem is systematic: its closed (as oposed to open) design nature is slowing down debugging and more importantly its close relationship with OS is proving fatal to security. OO does not have that.
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:4, Funny)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice needs this too (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love FOSS. I'll use it every chance I can get. I will sing the praise of FOSS all day long.
However, Office is one of the best products Microsoft has ever put out. It is feature rich, the new UI in Office 12/2007 is damned clever, and despite all the bells and whistles, it loads extremely fast.
KOffice isn't nearly as powerful. OpenOffice.org is slow and bloated. I'm also not crazy about how 20% of the program is in Java.
The big knock on MS Office is the security flaws that come from macros. Just turn them off. And people have done proof-of-concept macro exploits with OpenOffice as well. The reason that we see so many in MS Office is because people specifically target it. It hackers targetted OpenOffice as often, you'd likely see the same number, if not more exploits.
But honestly, MS Office is a pretty solid product.
Re:Seriously? (Score:1)
You can't honestly say that. All you can really say is that there may be more exploits found. More people looking for exploits doesn't mean that they will either find them or that they are there to be found. Even then, with more unknown flaws existing in OpenOffice, you can't make a quantitative comparison between the two totally unrelated code bases.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
I still believe Office to be one of the best products they put out. And I do believe (though I can't quantify with real evidence) that you could easily see the same type (and number) of exploits in other office suites if they were targeted as often.
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
The exploits that are easy to find are very likely to already have been found
by the developers. The exploits that are difficult to find are the ones that
we're worried about (although the developers have the advantage there too since
they tend to know the code more intimately).
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Of course, for OOo, just about anyone is theoretically free to track the complete bug down and provide the fix, while we can just report it in the MS case. It goes both ways, but having access to the source doesn't me
fuzz to 0wned... (Score:2)
So your program crashes with a PC=0xdeadbeef (as an example), you search the fuzz data for the sequence 0xdeadbeef, and try changing the fuzz data to 0xbeefdead, and if that's the new PC in the crash, you simply put a really short break-me sequence in front of it, and change the PC to t
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Um, you do realize that it adds a pre-loader to the machine startup so that it's running whether you're using it or not, and that's why it fires up so fast, don't you?
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Whatever flaws MSFT may have, their Office is a SOLID product.
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Siege (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Siege (Score:1)
Re:Siege (Score:4, Funny)
Spell-check does not notice misspelled words.
Attacking Office vs. attacking IE (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in tune with the general movement of virus and trojan writers to make money for their work, that we have been seeing in recent years. Internet Explorer was a good way to reach as many people as possible, but such attacks are also quickly detected, since they affect many people. So you make some money (for porn ads, most likely), then stop. With Office, you can attack fewer targets, but get paid well for your efforts, and no-one ever hears about it.
This sort of corporate espionage can go on for years without any antivirus vendor even getting the chance to encounter the malware. In addition, virtually 100% of corporations use Office; it's easier to leave IE in favor of Firefox than Office for OpenOffice. So targetting Office makes a lot of sense.
Re:Attacking Office vs. attacking IE (Score:1, Interesting)
After a period of intense fixing on a component, one expects the remaining flaws to be harder to find - not that there aren't any, of course.
Re:Attacking Office vs. attacking IE (Score:2)
Are you saying that it could happen or you know it does happen? It sounds like the latter.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Help stomp out "more than" abuse! (Score:2)
Re:Help stomp out "more than" abuse! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Help stomp out "more than" abuse! (Score:2)
On the other side.... (Score:2)
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
And the free desktops? (Score:2, Insightful)
More than 6 times? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-Virus Deals With This (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Virus Deals With This (Score:2)
The problem with most of these exploits is that they are highly targeted. This means that AV vendors often never get the infected sample until much later - after the damage is done - if ever. Companies are loathe to disclose the fact that they've had a security breach to anyone - even upper-management - let alone outside AV vendors. This means the exploit can be abused for long periods of time with many different targeted victims before it even gets on the AV radar. This whole time, my company might be
Re:Anti-Virus Deals With This=Wrong! (Score:2)
Am I the only one (Score:1, Offtopic)
Meaningless statistics... (Score:4, Insightful)
And on the topic of flawed interpretation, I really must protest the comparison of an entire suite of at least 4 applications to ONE (internet explorer). That's worse than meaningless - that's just plain stupid.
You know how the saying goes about statistics - "The average human being has one breast and one testicle."
It's a danger *now*?? (Score:3, Informative)
Bollocks! They've always posed a danger, it's just that now they're getting some attention. I wonder if they'll look at TrueType/OpenType fonts any time soon - anyone remember the BSOD .ttf file?
Not how many bugs, but why is interesting. (Score:1)
Also Office is the new vector of attack, no longer IE or email. Office is now the format for the web, and people can't avoid opening files coming from the outside. A good reason to examine it closely.
The reason why office is being targetted ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Anything built on top of Office System will also be targetted. Office is not just about Outlook or word or Excel anymore. It is an entire ECO SYSTEM for business.
My company business unit is building upon O12 System. This is a great reason to be concerned. It offers ALOT for free (including the vulnerabilities due to its inherent complexity and visiblity)
If someone else can find the flaws, why didn't MS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've heard that Microsoft is managed in such a way that programmers don't have time to finish their work. I know that Microsoft makes more money if there are more flaws, because users can be expected to upgrade.
However, it seems that there are too many bugs for that to be the whole explanation.
So, why, year after year, has Microsoft been at the top of the vulnerabilities list? I don't accept the argument that "software is complex, and always has bugs. There are people [openbsd.org] who know how to write complex software that is secure. Microsoft could certainly hire such people. If the company wanted to have software that was relatively free of vulnerabilities, it could.
The argument that Microsoft vulnerabilities get more attention doesn't seem adequate to me to explain the huge number of very severe bugs.
But, what is the explanation?
Re:If someone else can find the flaws, why didn't (Score:3, Insightful)
May I point you to the OpenBSD bug tracker [openbsd.org], in which you may notice a bug has been open (Not even analyzed) since 1997. MSFT isn't the only one who doesn't fix bugs quickly, 9 years is a bit excessive.
Re:If someone else can find the flaws, why didn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If someone else can find the flaws, why didn't (Score:3, Informative)
>Severity: critical
As quoted from the tracker.
Re:If someone else can find the flaws, why didn't (Score:2)
Given the sheer number of people looking for flaws who don't work for Microsoft, the answer is simply: Microsoft could, if they employed as many people to look for bugs. But since other people are doing it, and for free, why should they?
So, why, year after year, has Microsoft been at the top of the vulnerabilities list?
Because their products are used in more places than any other. Therefore, if you want to write an exploit which will spread the fu
Automated tools (Score:4, Insightful)
It is somehow considered "unfair" to use to these tools? Does MS already know of the flaws found by these tools and just chosen not to fix them? Do the OO.org people run these tools agsinst the OO.org suite.
From a practicle point of view, these tools just seem like regression test. Test that we all know we should run, but few take the time to so do. And as solftware developers not running regression tests really puts the responsibility of the falws in the developers lap, not QA or the user.
Re:Automated tools (Score:3, Insightful)
Automated tests are fantastic, and I use them extensively, but not many developers do the same.
Re:Automated tools (Score:3, Informative)
The fact of the matter is that fuzzing tools weren't very common while Office 2003 was being developed; while I'm sure the concept has existed for quite awhile, I the first I'd heard of it was around 2004, and it wasn't until 2005 until I saw much in the way of
Re:Access ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Access ? (Score:2)
Re:Access ? (Score:1)
Also, I don't know if these testers are paid or not, but yes, Micrsoft has their own testers. However, the tried and true method of having an outside source proofread your work i
Re:Access ? (Score:4, Informative)
1) they're talking about security vulnerabilities, not bugs. I'm sure the number of Office bugs are in the thousands... It's pretty difficult to write a large piece of software without them
2) The article was stating that 24 Vulnerabilities were found in the current crop of Office, not in the up and coming Office 2007, so your bit about "not available to public" is not applicable
Re:Access ? (Score:5, Funny)
(I keed, I keed...)
Re:Access ? (Score:2)
Re:Access ? (Score:5, Informative)
Access is huge in business because it is trivial to modify the user interface, and to add functionality later on. A massive database solution might do the job faster but if the IT staff can't go in and change the interface every now and then it is pointless. A prime example is upgrading the user interface from the one designed in 1998 for an 800x600 screen to a more recient 1024x768 interface.
that problem is a RESULT of using Access (Score:2)
Using a proper GUI toolkit, building an app that fails to scale is probably more difficult than building one that scales perfectly. All the example apps scale perfectly. Most of the documentation assumes that you want your app to scale perfectly. As a bonus, you get a programming language that isn't a joke.
Proper toolki
Re:Access ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in larger businesses, where a major enterprise database/system would NEVER be written in "access" its not uncommon for a little access app to be written as a custom front end to some aspect of an mssql server database. In fact that's one of access' strenths, its actually a pretty good RAD (rapid application development) tool for building simple UI front ends for larger databases. And since Access is bundled with Office
Re:Access ? (Score:2)
Re:Access ? (Score:5, Funny)
Is OpenOffice ready? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I use OpenOffice, but from what I hear it's not that easy to use OpenOffice for many corporations. Some people I know are in the process of building a tech company, and they wanted to use OpenOffice, both because of the cost and because of the security. But some testing revealed that a single feature made that impossible for them: 'track changes' worked fine in OO, but opening a document from Office with change tracking never succeeded 100%. Apparently they plan to collaborate on documents with people outside their organization, so that's a problem. Sadly it looks like they will be buying Office licenses soon.
OpenOffice is great for a home user, but 'enterprise-oriented' features like tracking changes with people using Office are a must for some corporations. Until OpenOffice gets this sort of stuff to work, I can't completely agree with the quote above.
Although, given the security risk for Office users - which we can't even evaluate, as I'm assuming most corporate espionage is never discovered - it might be rational to find a way to live without some of the features in Office. Or, alternatively, to run Office on Crossover Office on Linux (assuming some of the trojan functionality, e.g. calling home, depends on ties with the underlying OS, which makes sense to me).
Re:Is OpenOffice ready? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OpenOffice (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't mind me asking: how many users (corporate desktops, not friends/family) have you migrated from MS Office to OpenOffice?
Talk is cheap. Until you've moved maybe 100 or more people professionally from one to the other, you really shouldn't drone on about "incompetence". Suffice it to say: people do NOT want to change, and will put up with amazing amounts of wasted time and inconvenience to avoid doing so. Most people think of computers as these "black boxes" with arcane syntax and usability.
I've had tech support calls that consisted of somebody dragging the menu around in IE so that the "back" button had moved! (which underscores perhaps the most worthless feature MS has ever put out - the movable menu. Who ever wants to change that?)
It's not incompetence - it's following the path of least resistance. That results in less friction, which results in happier staff which results in more productivity, which results in more profit, which means that the executives get richer, the lackeys don't get fired, and everybody is satisfactorially miserable.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:1)
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure this problem will go away sooner or later but until then it's just so much easier to use Word instead of Writer.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:5, Insightful)
A few dozen - companies are small around here, so 'hundreds' would mean changing jobs a lot.
This is nonsense. In my experience, almost every user has no interest in the matter at all. They don't "want to change" but neither do they "not want to change". In fact, they don't want to be bothered by the decision. I could install MS Office; they wouldn't understand how to use it. I can install OpenOffice; they don't understand how to use that either, but it costs less and reduces worm damage. Either way, I'm going to get the same number of calls from people who can't figure out how to change the font size.
It's not that they're willing to put up with amazing amounts of wasted time and inconvinience to avoid switching - it's that they're willing to put up with wasted time and inconvinience, period. That has got nothing to do with their choice of software; they assume that all software is going to waste their time and inconvinience them, and consider it to be what they are paid for.
There are occasionally a small number of 'power users', who like to play with all the toys in a piece of software. These are the ones who loudly and strongly object to (any) changes. I simply forward all their complaints to the company directors, along with a quote for a copy of MS Office to install on that user's workstation; the directors can then decide whether this person is worth spending the extra money on. Interop between different versions of Office with different paper sizes is a joke anyway (because the users do not understand how to make it work), so they don't notice any extra problems caused by converting back and forth between MS and OpenOffice formats. The users understand that if they want a document to look the same way to the person receiving it, they should either (a) print it, or (b) send it as a PDF (because that's what I tell them every time they have trouble with this).
The reason for all this is simple: word processing and other 'office' applications are largely comprised of things that are not 'business-critical'. This means that so long as you can get a tidy-looking document onto a piece of paper, the rest is not significantly going to affect the business. The efficiency of this process does not have any visible effect on the bottom line (regardless of whether it has any actual effect) - because producing documents is 'overheads', not a part of the 'productive' side of the business (for most businesses). If you were in a business where the documents were your actual product, then it might matter, but you probably aren't (I'm not). Once I sketch these things out for the company directors, they invariably say "do it the way that doesn't involve spending £300 per workstation". They don't care about anything else, and consider the requests for expensive copies of Office in the same manner that they consider requests for expensive leather office chairs. While it is somewhat perverse to think of Office as a luxury, I don't have a problem with this because it means I have less copies of the thing to support.
My goodness, where did you get that idea? Nobody seriously cares about the happiness of employees doing office work, because they are interchangeable and frequently changed. It comes back to that "not business-critical" thing again. You want the employees producing your
Re:OpenOffice (Score:5, Insightful)
While some of my customers are exactly the casual users that you describe, who don't really "need" Office, there's more at stake than you're really seeing. First, users and businesses evolve. Sally the Secretary might not actually need Word right now, but if she develops a need for Word at any point during the life-cycle of the computer she uses, there's going to be a problem. That problem: OEM software is cheaper than retail and only purchasable with hardware. Ooops. Okay, how about Volume Licensing? Sure, that's do-able, but there's a minimum number of licenses that have to be bought at once to qualify to open a VL account, which only lasts TWO YEARS. It's often -- not always -- a good idea to set up the PC with the functionality it's likely to aquire during its life cycle on day 0.
Next, all it takes is one feature not present in "the industry standard", a.k.a. MS Office, to throw into fairly severe scrutiny any advice to use an alternate product, free or not. Want to know how many tool-and-mold programs that render cutter-paths link to Excel? Excel. Not "something functionally equivalent to Excel." Want to know how many insurance industry programs that do either client-management or quote-generation link to Word or Outlook? Not "something functionally equivalent to Word or Outlook." It's common. Not universal, but common. And again, if you impliment something "nonstandard" day 0 and have to come back later to retrain and rework even a small department, it's easy for accounting departments (the guys who often link their software to Excel or Access) to wonder why things weren't just done "right" in the first place. You're the IT guy. You should've seen this coming.
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there's a reason why I have been unable to recommend Firefox (for instance) to even a single customer, despite being firmly addicted and a True Believer. One site that doesn't render "right" or even "the same" and my recommendation becomes suspect. One call to the support desk at whatever-business-partner-whose-site-doesn't-SEEM
It's hard. It's very hard in a LOT of cases to recommend anything other than MS' products. And that's the ugly truth.
as a pessimist, you're part of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
A bit of optimism is called for.
Suggesting IE is pure evil. You're needlessly putting critical data at risk.
Re:as a pessimist, you're part of the problem (Score:2)
Related reasons:
fiduciary duty
trade secrets
Sabares-Oxley
HIPPA
SEC rules and regulations regarding insider knowledge
Re:OpenOffice (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies aren't interested in open source, just because it's open source... it has to not only have all of the features of MS office, but it has to give them a reason to switch.. it has to save them money, or make them more productive.
Yes.. OO is free. so it would save them money WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING TO UPGRADE from what they already have.. but if they have Office and it's working, switching to a new office suite for no reason is only going to cost them money.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
Businesses hire people to help them resolve an issue.. not look for changes that don't need to be made.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
People have been saying that for at least a hundred years now. Probably longer. Hasn't happened yet.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you're getting Office help calls, so I'll assume you are not a developer.
You would be amazed at the 'requirements' that a lot of users have, and the features that they MUST use. I write software for a primarily academic crowd. Each person (PhD) just needs
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
Well, you're getting Office help calls, so I'll assume you are not a developer.
I'm a developer. My software created a report in CSV format that their browser (IE) opened in Excel.
User was unfamiliar with Excel and could not figure out how to close the program since the file menu was moved. (WTF!?!?!)
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly. A limited part of my job, fortunately, is user support. Dynamic and movable menus make this a total nightmare. Now, not only do they not know where the thing they're looking for is, I can't be sure I do, either.
Quite right (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. As soon as OO implements a large enough subset of Office features, I'll be all over that.
Until then, as long as there's a need to embed documents, to use a powerful macro language that communicates with the OS and other software, to have data update in real time, to interop with business logic that depends on DDE or XLLs, or to do any of the million other essential things that Excel (in particular) does and OO does not, it's "Hello, Clippy!"
Actually, though, I do have some questions for those who might take a more optimistic view than me:
1 -- maths formulae created in OO don't seem to work in Word. Is that OO's fault or Word's?
2 -- Bloomberg's DDE system seems not to work with OO (not that it's particularly efficient in Excel either). Is that OO's fault or Bloomberg's?
Re:Quite right (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the Microsoft approach.
The OSS approach is not to try to integrate the stuff in the application. Integrating stuff to applications is slow, dif
Re:Quite right (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
feeture fud .. Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
On this computer, Open Office opens and runs just as fast as msOffice under Windows. Most people stick to open/spellcheck/save/print. It doesn't matter how many feetures, you still have to pay someone to work the computer.
"after all time is not worthless"
fud injection alert
Re:feeture fud .. Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
MS Office starts up in a couple of seconds, OO can take up to a minute. Anyone but the most hardened of zealots can admit this.
Re:feeture fud .. Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
If praising OSS makes me a 'fanboy' what exactly does that make you?
"MS Office starts up in a couple of seconds, OO can take up to a minute. Anyone but the most hardened of zealots can admit this."
With the quickstart applet and increasing cache memory, it open up as fast as msOffice. After the first use it's slightly faster.
troll alert: mod -9
keywords: fanboy, hardened, zealots
Re:feeture fud .. Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
troll alert .. Re: feeture fud .. Re: OpenOffice (Score:2)
No, resorting to name calling makes you a TROLL
"Openoffice is slow"
False
"awkward to use"
How so exactly. Most users can't tell the difference
"and lacks a lot of features"
Exactly what kind of functionality does it lack?
"I think I'll stick with MS Office, for a professional user the price is not important"
The corollary meaning being 'professional' users don't use OO and the rest only use it because it is 'free'
"a
Re:OpenOffice (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Absolutely. "Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft Office."
I know several business where 90% of the users don't need much more than WordPad who are running MS Office Pro. They only use spreadsheets at all because the "table" layout makes doing certain types of form easier -- they have timesheets, expense sheets, etc that don't even use calculations. They don't use powerpoint or access or even outlook. (they on a corporate webmail)
They DO NOT need a several hundred licenses of MS Office.
But the IT director authorizes Office Pro on every new desktop. There is no business case for it. When I suggested they cut costs and standardise on OO on at least the machines that are being used by low level staff to fill out their time sheet and read office memos I just get a blank stare.
They've never heard of it, don't beleive that it could possibly meet their needs (which they've clearly never actually assessed), and they have ZERO intention of even looking into it. Worse they've been gradually growing, and new machines come with new office the old machines have "old office".. so they are supporting users with every version office since 95.
Its sad.
FWIW I *have* converted a couple companies to OO, and the most recent was done as part of a general upgrade. We pulled out boxes with Win98 and Office 98 and dropped in new XP Pro boxes with OO. We set the defaults to use office formats so there would be minimal transition issues. Most staff aren't even really aware they aren't using Microsoft Office anymore -- which is unfortunate really, because its not doing OO much good if people don't even know they are using it.
I've also recommended OO to a many Home users. For the most part they are happy with it, and it works well enough that they actually prefer the "legality" of it even if its not 100% what they are used to.
Re:OpenOffice (Score:4, Informative)
collaboratively authoring .. Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
What was the name of this business?
Why did it migrate to OpenOffice in the first place?
What did you use before migrating to Open Office?
"Since changing to office our productivity on certain tasks such as collaboratively authoring"
Neither msOffice nor OpenOffice are suitable for such a purpose. What you need is some kind of CVS [wikipedia.org] system only in this case to handle rich text files.
"We just send the latest version and they send
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah. What a wonderfully simple world. If only end users would listen to us IT geeks who know what they actually need, and if only every IT geek agreed on what that need actually was... Do you really believe there is no business case to be made for pre-installing a common suite of desktop apps, of which most of the workforce has experience, and which is known to serve the needs of power users? And do you think issuing edicts ex cathedra on what your user base really needs, without careful evaluation, is the b
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2)
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes you think there wasn't careful evaluation?
Congrats on having run across so many low-tech businesses where WordPad suffices for 90 % of users. However, I'd suggest you avoid hitching your wagon to them: the ratio and level of knowledge workers in most Western industries can only increase, and for them WordPad and its ilk quickly becomes a s
Re:OpenOffice (Score:2, Informative)
You can sync your device directly to the Exchange server, effectively skipping the need for the installation of any software on the desktop machine.
You can also use ActiveSync across an GPRS link, and get BlackBerry like functionality (including E-Mail Push).
Re:OpenOffice (Score:3, Insightful)
ActiveSync is he absolute worst synchronization software on the planet.
It took me a long time to get it to work on my fathers machine, and after spending a considerable amount of time doing research on the problem it spontaneously started working correctly.
No, I am not kidding. I have never seen a functional piece of software that was as capable of acting flakey and in-determinant as ActiveSync.
And someday someone is going to have to explain to me what ever happened to plug-and-play under windows. If you ac
Re:Academic Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
And? When I did my MSc we did use MS Office (before the days of OOo) but we did all our citations by hand. It didn't make things much slower as long as you were organised. And if you're not organised enough to keep track of your citations, what the hell are you doing in academia anyway, and what the hell is your thesis going to read like?
Bob
Re:Academic Problems (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as PowerPoint goes, I put together my last presentation in the OO clone & exported it as a