Slashdot Mirror
Metadata in Vista Could Be Too Helpful
linumax writes "Windows Vista will improve search functionality on a PC by letting users tag files with metadata, but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned. Search and organization capabilities are among the primary features of Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP due out late in 2006. While building those features, Microsoft is not paying enough attention to managing the descriptive information, or metadata, that users can add to files to make it easier to find and organize data on a PC, according to Gartner. 'This opens up the possibility of the inadvertent disclosure of this metadata to other users inside and outside of your organization,' Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald wrote in a research note published on Thursday."
Windows Vista will improve search functionality on a PC by letting users tag files with metadata, but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned.
Ha-ha! You're using Windows!
The new version of Windows will be insecure???
Say it ain't so.....
If my metadata could be viewed by other people inside and outside my organization, there's an easy solution to this.
Don't fill out the metadata fields!
Isn't this like saying Airbags are too safe? I thought whole point of metadata is to make it easier to search and find data? How can it be *too* helpful?
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
Should it be a surprise MS hasn't taken adequate security measures in the "advance" of its operating system that seems like another attempt to compete with google? I say stick to Google Desktop http://desktop.google.com/. And your own directory architecture for organization.
Walk with Music;
Now we have a business analyst group trying to direct a computer software company how to write its software. When Gartner starts making new technology or being otherwise reasonably involved in technology, they can have a seat at the table. For now, this is just horrendously bad policy. Anyways, the Microsoft DOC format already contains a horrendous amount of metadata, the full history of changes that led to the current document, among other things. Where's Gartner's whines about that?
No... say it ain't so...
:)
Surely Microsoft aren't adding a feature to Windows without giving thorough consideration as to how the feature will work in a multi user, internet connected, environment ?
After all they've show time and time again how much they cae about these things
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
My colleague at my former job once sent our boss a report in a file named 'for_dickhead_2003_11'. He changed the file name before attaching it to the email. Unfortunately, a self-reference in the file contents remained, showing the unfortunately chosen first name. Fortunately, our boss just politely reminded him to pick more neutral names, just in case.
Microsoft not thinking about security is news?! Tell me when a microsoft product has reasonable security, that will be news.
;-)
But I suppose that for the protection of the unwashed, we should inform them of new flaws in MS products.
Think Deeply.
...if fellow co-workers learn I heart Fabio from the tags in my massive library of rectal gaping porn.
Nothing worse then searching for one thing, and coming up with a "*ultra-midget-fetish-sex-in-chocolate*" result when your g/f is around.......... That's my biggest gripe of indexers. Too easy to accidently find files. Like search for your g/fs name if you want pictures of her (and she is hooking over your shoulder wanting them), she may see her name come up in a convo between you and your bud that you'd rather her not see.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Help me out here, but what's so difficult about not storing metadata in-line ?
After 10 years of M$ Word disclosing secret information, you'd have guessed that "a removal tool" as mentioned in the article is obvious to anyone with half a brain as not good enough.
Storing the meta-data in a seperate file, or how about with the other metadata (i.e. with the inode) isn't so hard, is it? And it is quite obviously the right thing. There's even a big, red hint right there in your face: It's called meta-data. Might want to treat it different from the actual data, you know?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I find it a little annoying when someone does a "doom and gloom" review of a beta product, focusing on bugs or immature features. Its like doing a review of a building in progress and shouting out: "It has no roof! The rain will come right in! What are they thinking!"
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I hear that the 2008 Toyota Prius will have a 7' high spoiler. What's up with that?
Oh, sorry... I just figured that we're talking about products that are still a few years down the pipe that haven't been anywhere close to finalized yet.
I don't know about anybody else, but we not only don't evaluate software years before it's released, but we generally wait until the software has been out for at least a year before even looking at it. I don't know what the point is of reviewing a product this early. The only thing that I can figure out is that it's a way to get a few more pageviews.
I don't respond to AC's.
sounds like he's worried about people finding his porn collection when they search for seemingly unrelated things(scat music, majestic horse paintings, old lady jokes, kiddie books and toys, etc). maybe someone should just tell him not to tag that stuff
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
is to make the metadata attatched to document files viewable only on the Vista installation it was created on. Perhaps it would be possible to have the operating system strip the data off the files that are being copied or moved to other network locations as a precursor to each respective process. In this case, they would also have to work some kind of functionality into the next iteration of Outlook, so that the problem could be stemmed from the email side of things.
What 3rd party vendors would do to accomodate this is anyone's guess.
'This opens up the possibility of the inadvertent disclosure of this metadata to other users inside and outside of your organization' Well this would suck, and will no doubt slow the release date down if it is not fixed soon!
Surely Metadata is part of the filesystem (ie there is a seperate store of metadata seperate from the actual file)?
How can they possibly attach their metadata to the actual file, this would corrupt the files for other users.
If the metadata is stored in the local filesystem then surely there is no need to be worried about that metadata getting out since it is not attached to the file (unlike Word document revisions)
How is this different than naming your file "Invoice for Asshole Larry.doc" and mailing it to the client? Simple solution: don't put potentially embarassing stuff in the metadata fields.
Do people really need an analysis to tell them this?
I've often been amused by what appears in the Properties pane of Word document sent by clients or what you can dredge up from Track Changes. Evidence of re-used documents, other projects, other clients, and deft attempts at redaction abound in the hidden metadata and edits.
The more data a computer saves (especially if hidden from plain site), the greater the chance of embarrassment and unintended leakage of sensitive info.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
And now we'll see Microsoft delay the release of Vista for another year, and yes, more people will be fired for their supposed ignorance in this meta matter.
If you have any kind of data which needs to be kept private (we have HIPPA compliance to worry about at our medical office), using Google desktop is a bit scary. Yes, it allows you to "lock out" certain data sources, but on machines where private data passes in a lot of different formats, things can easily slip through the cracks.
Of course, we don't have it on our main office machines, because they are running Slackware. Our machines that are locked into Windows for hardware interface reasons had to have Desktop removed from them after a couple of almost-incidents.
YMMV
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Having something like "post-it notes" that do not stick to the file, but instead are part of the directory entry for that file, might be more useful and safer. If someone sends me a file, I don't want that person's metadata to pollute my classification of files.
That's somewhat like what happens with e-mail - I receive plenty of mails that the sender marked as "high priority", but that are low priority to me. Metadata on the file should be objective; subjective information should be stored somewhere else and not be transmitted together with the file.
Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP
Why didn't anyone tell me this before!?!?
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
Allchin said those enhancements--along with a reduction in the number of times customers have to reboot their machines and other features--will mean that companies that move to Longhorn will be able to cut their operating costs. Of course, he added, "that's up to us to prove."
Got that? To cut your operating costs, pay Microsoft some more money for some Longhorns.
Have a hardon, feel horny? gf broke up.
:O
/* -iname *xxx* 2>/dev/null is a pretty hard command for non *nix users.
M$ Vista
Searching for your porn stash has never been easier with M$ Vista's new meta-data feature
seriously this is a true reason not to use Vista. Just imagine the plot u have some friends over
you leave them with your new box u come back and they were able to play that 1.30 min pr0n movie on your bigscreen tv
That's why i use *nix: find
Are you implying that you have pics of Fabio's gaping rectum? FOATSE!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
We never send any raw documents out to customers. We always print them to PDF first. Looking back I wonder if there is still a chance private data could be leaked, that somehow PDF layers the hidden stuff underneath and if someone were to peel back the top.
But this will just be an extension to that policy to check for any meta data.
It's all under control. Just train your users to manage their own metadata.
So why do i need meta data again?!?!
Even the much vuanted google desktop had information discloser issues.
as this type of technology comes to the mainstream its to be expected the early stuff may have a bug or two. (see: google desktop)
and here they are slamming microsoft for a new feature people are asking for. and telling them how to do it, when they have no idea on how hard this kind of thing is to do from a software engineering perspective.
I mean sheesh The product is in BETA, make a bug report to microsoft as a beta tester if you find a bug.
I mean windows vista has alot of very new stuff under the hood which is very cool. much of the stuff effects security and stability which is a good thing.
-Nex6
"but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned."
Oh, you mean more embrassing than finding cookies and cached images from pr0n sites and the like? Unless you're considering self comments like "he's so hawt! I'd so tap that!" Not that you that most people's surfing already involuntarily discloses their personal data like a sieve.
I'd be less concerned about people appending credit card numbers and such to files, not embrassement.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
.. about what MS decides to incorportate in its proprietary platform. The more user-hostile, privacy-invading, insecure, and unreliable it is, the more people will finally realize that MS completely sucks and will consider taking the bit of extra effort that MS currently makes necesarry for them to choose to use something *other* than MS. And once enough people choose away from MS, the more people will support the rights of end-users to have a market that isnt monopolized by one vendor.
So go ahead, MS, fuck over your customers in any way that you want to, or are paid by RIAA/MPAA/BSA to. The more you fuck them over, the less customers you will have, and the better the overall health of software technology will be.
You have to put up with a certain amount of fucking over to stick with MS, It just seems that some people are willing to take more than others and still remain loyal. Of course some poor ignorant fools will stick with them till the end, and I pity them.
This is idiocy - any disclosure of data which is unwanted can be damaging; so, are we not to have it? Don't index the files and don't name the files, also - this can be potentially embarrassing as well; and don't ever have a shovel in the house, kids cut off each others' heads clear off with those things!
I have tried a Vista beta, and after 4 hours of trying out various search features I installed Google Desktop and found Vista to be just as good as my old XP.
Wich btw runs just fine under Vmware on my Ubuntu distro.
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
For example, a user might use "good customers" and "bad customers" as keywords on contract files. If such a contract is sent to the customer with the keyword still attached, it could cause embarrassment or even loss of business, the analysts wrote.
Wait a minute... Since the tags in question are an OS feature, wouldn't the OS have to store them somewhere else in the filesystem, outside the file, since it can't know how to stuff them inside a file of an arbitrary format? And when you send someone a file, isn't it only the content of the file that is sent, along with the filename of course? Ergo, isn't it impossible to inadvertently send someone a file with Vista's tags still attached, since they're not in the file itself?
<slashdot-editor-mode> Does this mean that Gartner analysts are simply FUD-mongering without a clue? </slashdot-editor-mode>
Gartner is becoming pretty hyperbolic. Is this seriously a problem? And why wouldn't it affect anyone else? You just can't take unreasonable anti-MS seriously anymore.
Please see:h .cgi?file=/1954/15583.html
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-aut
And search for "properties".
Find Nearby Indie Events
Why is that *Microsoft's* responsibility? If you're going to put sensitive information in metadata then you need to think a little bit about who you are sending the file to!
"New! Microsoft Security Assistant! Keeps you from putting sensitive data into your files, where it may leak to unauthorized persons! So you have to think even less than you do now!"
I guess what Gartner is saying wrt boosting the meta-data options is that marketing has won over security on Microsoft's tick list, whereas after Vista is launched the userbase will demand that security wins over marketing. We've been here with MS before, oh my yes ...
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
The last major features that separate Vista from XP are: Searchable metadata and vector-based graphics. Everything else has effectively been scaled back or scrapped. As such, people using Vista will be encouraged to tag everything, if not by the OS (yeah right, like Microsoft isn't going to stick a reminder-like app. in the tray for a feature they've been marketing), then the organizations who purchase Vista will encourage tagging.
I still find this very hard to conceive. WTF do users have to SEARCH their own data anyway? What did people do before MS fucked it up for them?
Well, we used to file away FILES in filing cabinets that had drawers all marked - and inside each drawer was as a folder arranged however the user wantted it! Everything was marked as to what it was, and arranged logically.
None of the ~%user%/fredblo~2/setting~1/my docu~2/cache~3/ bollocks (OK, I donwloaded it.... where did it go?????)
I mean. What a load of bollocks in having to do this on a supposedly 'advanced' OS that causes the bloody problem in the first place.
Why does the metadata need to be in the file? Why can't it just be in another file/persistance mechanism with a reference in the document to the location of the metadata?
Does this mean people will get lazy about file names? What will happen to directories? I am sure they won't go away. But, MS is trying to make them transparent to the end user. Which was a goal of their WinFS. Im worried this meta data thing will get out of hand and then things will rely on it. I do not like the idea for searching for my data everytime I want to access it. Folders and filenames excite me because I can easily sort/find my stuff. I can quickly access it. If I need to search I have google. Like id3 tags...? I do not find myself using it. I do not need to see the title scrolling in winamp, because I have the file approriately named. But, thats just me.
The 'unwashed' suggests to me the *nix geeks that hang around here.
Normal people (who don't give a shit about computers as long as they work) generally wash often.
Windows already has the concept of connected files. You can save a web page in explorer and end up with an html page and a folder with the files it references, then they get treated as one when you copy/delete them. It's quite possible the metadata could be implemented as a connected file with the extra information.
Homer: From now on, there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Windows Vista way.
Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm shocked, shocked to see Microsoft prioritizing features over security.
</Claude Rains>
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
The mac OS (offering previews of the next Windows OS since 1984) already suffers from this problem and so far there are no graceful solutions. Namely spotlight gathers sensitive info in ways I wish it would not. To be specific, I deal with a lot of confidential e-mail that can include personell problems of empoyees. At the same time it's got all my project info on it. When an employee comes to talk about a project I will often search for terms related to the project or sometimes by the employeees name in spotlight while they sit around my screen. Spotlight pulls up the docs and the e-mails onto the same search results screen. Seeing titles of certain e-mails or possibly just the addresses can reveal confidential information or be embarassing.
As a result I no longer have spotlight index my e-mails. And of course that's a pain in the ass since it means Mail.app's searhc feature is busted. While I can figure out how to work around that (e.g. don't use mail.app, which would be a pity), the story does not end there. Unfortunately, spotlight indexes my backup volumes too, and it can blunder across old mail there and index it.
Now you might think I could also turn off indexing the backup volumes but there's the rub. First I might not want to. Second, you can't always do it. Spotlight has some bugs in how it handles logical partitions on disks and in particular it sometimes ignores being told not to index a volume if another partitions is being indexed.
Anyhow eventually there will be more fine grained control on privacy, but then the interface will become more cludgy too. In fact that may just kill the whole fine grained control effort since most folks don't worry about this sort of things and would prefer simplicity.
It's perhaps worth noting that windows dropped making the filesystem a database (for now). That might be a smart move since making at a wrapper like spotlight means they are less locked into a single search design. Problems like this will emerge slowly and flexibility to plug problems will be needed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I suppose having correct fonts, layout and pagination regardless of platform or output device must really be bothersome, to say nothing of being free from macros, much less macro viruses.
Seriously, what the hell bugs people so much about PDF?
Still dissappoints me though.
One day I'll be jaded enough to say "whatever"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
For example, several years ago Microsoft reportedly posted its annual report as a Word document, which contained evidence that it was composed on a Macintosh.
That example is good for a chuckle (OK, maybe a belly laugh for us Mac fanboys), but suppose someone sent a document to a customer that showed it was filed in a folder named "Correspondence with Idiot Customers" without the sender realizing it...
Another problem with meta data is the generation of meta data. If people generated their own data they could control what goes into it. But the problem here is that you just don't do it normally. Plus as documents change, get copied and modified and so on it gets out of sync unless you keep modifying it. Last thing most people would want is some rigourous change control protocol for every document and e-mail.
Which of course means automated meta-data scraping. this leads to the problem of confidential info disclosure. that's obvious. But it also leads to another problem that annoying. When do you update the meta data? when the file is created or modified? a small lag? or in batch overnight?
On macs you can force a batch overnight search. But the default on is for instant updates. If you add a search term to a document WHILE a search is being performed in another window it will find it! amazing. and very useful too. And it assures things like computers that sleep at night and detachable drives stay indexed.
But it's also amazingly annoying when you stop doing conventional desktop activities and start doing more unix like things. Tage for example untarring a 30 GB archive with twenty thousand small files in it or something that is generating transisent files in a rapid fire fashion. Well you start untarring and for the first few files it zips along. then suddenly throughput nose dives. Why? you look at your processes and you see MDL the indexing programming is chewing up your disk access.
You can work around this if you can control the file names and make sure they are ones it will not index. But that's not assured, always possible, and will vary from computer to computer.
So anyhow there's lots of fine tuning needed on these ubiquitous metadata systems. Fine grained privacy control and fine grained operation modes so it's live in desktop application mode and lags in unix/high performance modes.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This will make it much easier for trojans to find the personal info they are looking for.
"But while the OS bears plenty of similarities to Tiger, Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside. Such images can be rather small, but they offer a visual cue that aids in the searching process, Allchin said." But wait, doesn't about every single version of Linux do that?
Christ, why the hell does PDF get people's panties in such a bunch? It has a purpose for which it serves very well--disseminating _final_ documents intended for printed output that are not intended to be edited. Basically, think of it as a 21st Century FAX.
I mean, you might as well say "How dare you send me this bottle of Chateau D'Yquem. I mean, wine in a bottle? Geez, now I need a corkscrew. Why couldn't you send me a box-o-wine so I wouldn't have to go to all this trouble?" Uhm, yeah, you need an extra tool, but really, the difference in quality is probably worth it, but go ahead and guzzle that box wine if you're so attached to that hideous wrapper.
Yes and no. WinFS could support a concept similar to the resource fork concept in MFS/HFS/HFS+/etc. on the Macintosh. The "content" of the file could be one fork, the metadata could be stored in a second fork, and the forks combine to comprise the file object. I think NTFS might already support such a concept (I vaguely recall reading something about it, but it was a long time ago and I try to stay away from the internals of Windows if at all possible).
In many cases, I think you want the metadata copied along with the file. Simple example: I have an
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
So microsoft didn't think something throuhg before they built it.
Hmm what's new ?
how dangerous could it be if someone knows that a file is ready for archival or not?
or maybe you're gonna hide your most valuable files with attrib +h
c'mon, it's M$, it's not like they're gone use into something non dispensable like BeOS' mail over BeFS
drwx------ 8 root admin 272 Dec 23 03:39 .Spotlight-V100
:)
Yes, if they manage to apply rights based system system wide, something like OS X, it won't be problem.
I mean if they are stealing, steal it completely
Note I had to 'sudo ls -la' to see it even.
(os x 10.4 "tiger")
Seriously, everybody does things that they want to keep private and that should be their prerogative and their right. It's not OK to dismiss Microsoft playing fast and loose with your personal data because you think we should behave as if we have no personal data anyway. While I think that your advice is good idea to follow in general since Microsoft, et al, don't have the best record of trustworthiness, that by no means removes Microsoft's responsibility to design things in a secure way.
I find it interesting that Windows is getting to be more like Linux with every turn. XP, under the hood, already handles directory paths and devices just like Linux. The top-end of the OS does a good job of hiding it by adding a C:\ drive letter scheme on top of it. From what I've heard of Vista they aren't going to be hiding much of this anymore in order to make the OS seem more like Linux.
Can anyone please direct us to a site with screenshots of the Vista desktop?
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
I fail to see how this problem is specific to just Windows Vista. Wouldn't all operating systems (Mac OS X Tiger & BeOS included) that have filesystems that support metadata have this potential problem?
Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside. Such images can be rather small, but they offer a visual cue that aids in the searching process, Allchin said.
Kind of like Gnome has been doing for a few years now? How out of touch are these people???
AC has never been any kind of site administrator, eh? Those "stupid" other MDs in the practice, what were they thinking? Installing software from a source they trust (Google), but failing to anticipate the ramifications of doing so, doesn't seem unreasonable to them...
Using plain ol' text since 1968
This sort of problem is exactly the reason slocate replaced locate on UNIX machines. Searches only return references to things that you should have access to view. It would be wise for the Microsoft people to think in a more slocate-oriented way.
I'm no computer expert, but I do understand the argument against "security by obscurity" which has to do with FOSS vs closed source software.
Medicine is different, though. HIPPA basically requires that you use this kind of security (obscurity). Let me give you an example. If I have your (HIPPA protected) chart in the office on my desk, that's OK. If I leave it in the waiting room, it's not. Information does not have to be hidden from a determined (and illegal!) search, because, well, that's illegal, and because medical practice would grind to a halt if you added that much paperwork overhead.
But if you make it too easy for someone to "accidentally" stumble on HIPPA protected information, you're in a lot of troub le. And Google desktop does exactly that - offering "suggested" completions as you type, allowing you to find out that your neighbor Paul Smith has a patient letter on my computer while you were looking for your dad Paul Jones.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Stop hacking yourself! [whack] Stop hacking yourself! [whack] ...
Windows Vista will allow users to write TEXT FILES, but those TEXT FILES could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned. Search and organization capabilities are among the primary features of Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP due out late in 2006. While building those features, Microsoft is not paying enough attention to managing the descriptive information inside these TEXT FILES and make it easy to find data on a PC, according to Gartner. 'This opens up the possibility of the inadvertent disclosure of this TEXT FILE to other users inside and outside of your organization,' Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald wrote in a research note published on Thursday.
I havent used a mac in a long time and i was quite impressed with their OS. I cant help but feel windows UI is terrible and of course the security is a joke. But the worst part about it is... Vista is on the horizon (FAR horizon) ;) and its ugly as can be. It doesnt seem to offer much new.
That or i just am not made aware of the "super cool" features that Vista is going to have. But the screenshots i've seen look like XP beaten with an ugly stick. XP is ugly enough, no need to beat it up more! I say let the XP look die, and move onto a new UI.
I have to hand it to Apple. They really did a nice job. I'll still be using PC's of course but If MS's goal is to make a pretty OS like OSX, then they really need to work a lot harder.
In HTML, you can consider the data in the head to be 'metadata'. See the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The data in the head is 'invisible' to a web surfer (save for the title), but quite useful for the upcoming 'Semantic Web' and even for filtering on Google. However, since statisitically speaking, there are more people that lie than correclty use this metadata, it doesn't seem that it helps your PageRank with Google to have accurate metadata. In any case, this sort of data will not corrupt the rest of the file, e.g. the 'body' if the html.
Think global, act loco
Isn't the solution to your problem to not let the person you're searching about to stand around your screen?
So if I create a file (take a picture, create a home video of the kids at xmas). The average user is going to name it Xmas_05_opening_presents.mpg. Somehow I doubt they're going to spend 10minutes filling out "metadata" fields.
ANybody plan on adding metadata to 500 wedding pictures? Doubt it.
I don't know whether this is reassuring or whether, given the increase in really nasty criminal gangs in this country, to be really really scared.
Pining for the fjords
As a non-computer specialist who is basically computer literate and comfortable with the really basic programming tutelage I got in high school, but in no way a programmer, is Unix useful for me?
Is there any "How to use Unix if you don't want to type a lot of code and basically want windows without the bugs" option?
Also, do they have firefox for it?
So, Windows attaches the key words directly to the file, while Mac OS instead has a large index?
Sounds like Apple's approach is better, again.
Actually, there have been several cases where someone will run some new indexing search engine across a corporate network and find all types of confidential and/or embarassing data. Salaries, performance appraisals, etc. often have remnants in some normally overlooked folder in the filesystem ...
It's some group trying to pull bad Vista news out of its *ss.
Metadata makes search exponentially faster. So what they're saying is basically, "it's not as if this information is less protected now than before, but now it's just faster to find it".
Plus yea, it's not mandatory to tag your files in a "fast-to-find-by-folks-you-dont-want-to-find-it" way.
Ever had a friend get to your gmail account and search for the password? It's all over from there.
This is the same thing as people complaining that google is too good at finding things on the internet. Whether it's CC numbers, or vulnerable cgi, google isn't the problem. If you are embarrassed about certain things on your computer, then why are they there? I'm sure that, in time, a robots.txt style thing will come along anyway to prevent unwanted information linkage.
Files are files.
If you don't want's someone snooping into your personal affairs then don't store them on your PC, period!
-Scott
My other sig is a Glock
You're missing the point. The problem is not that metadata can be accessed for files that the user should not have access to; this is trivial with NTFS/UNIX file permissions, and I don't anticipate that it will be a problem in Vista. The problem is controlling access to files that you DO have access to. For example, I may want to give you access to a file without giving you access to the metadata, or I may have some files for which I want metadata to be ignored, or contain false metadata, and so on. These problems are *NOT* implementation-specific, they are inherent to any metadata scheme, which isn't to say that there aren't solutions, just not obvious nor simple ones.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Why? They've fixed it up a lot. I can't wait for Vista, and like anything else, it has bugs. However (if you actually use Windows Update), they are usually fixed within the week. Add that to a good firewall (like ZA Free ed., Windows Firewall sux) and a good AV (like ClamWin) and actually know what you're doing and run spyware checks... it's just as stable and secure as any other OS. In particular, their patching archeticure is much more stable than others, particulally macs. What happens when someone exploits a Mac vunerability? (Yes, there are. They just aren't publicized/exploited as much) True, IE is conceptually flawed, but use thereof in a proper manner (i.e. don't be fooled by the YourSearchBar popup you see) and it works fine. Hard use does require a reinstall, but that's probably a result of the use, and applicipable to Mac or *nix or ...
I know I will get flamed, but it just seems awfully unfair to always be bashing MS. And, before I am labelled an ignorant fool, I've been in this buisness for 9yrs. I've used Linux (debian) and Mac extensively. But, for 99% of everything I do, I use Windows. And the other percent, I use either Microsoft VPC/Debian or Cygwin. As an IS/IT admin, windows is the easy, intergrated, and user-friendly path.
Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate those old predjucies? Maybe? Yes, 9x and (particulary) ME were pieces of crap, but 2k and XP (admittedly less) were (are) great and stable. The average user flames on about MS breaking, when it's really their error and stupidity. Linux buffs that bash Windows are basing on old predjuces like ME. Those days are over. Give them some credit, please?
No, I am not affiliated with Microsoft or, for that matter, any corporation. I am a student. I really have used computers (my first was a Mac) for 9 years. I am not as ignorant as you might believe. Think about it from a clean perspective.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
1. User carefully adds a metadata tag to each important file on their computer
2. User stores that important (possibly vital) file in a random location on their hard drive. Who needs to carefully organize files when you have a local search engine?
3. User searches for everything because they have no idea where anything is
4. User cries when the metadata tags on their files lead to the disclosure of sensitive information.
5. Users blame Microsoft.
6. Hackers profit.
Repeat after me: "Paranoia is good because everyone *is* out to get me"
Microsoft may load the gun with real bullets, but you're the one who pointed it at your big toe and pulled the trigger! You're using Windows, moron, stop acting like it's Linux and plan for disaster!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
already? Am I missing something? Check the Summary tab in file properties. I see title, subject, category, keywords, comments, source, author, revision... this metadata can be appended to any file on an NTFS drive in a couple of clicks.
Would the Gartner analysts advise XP users to switch to W2K Pro until this "problem" is fixed?
Yes, NTFS supports that, they call them "streams" IIRC. You would just have to be sure to make sure all the streams went with the file, which is -not- the default behaviour on anything but ntfs-to-ntfs or ntfs-via-cifs-to-ntfs copies. (I'm pretty sure about the second one)
If I was eating or drinking anything it would be sprayed on everything in front of me also.
You're funny man!
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
I keep hearing that Vista is more liek liniux but I fail to see the connection! Lets look at redhat. Readhat bing one of the uglyest looking os around now were lookings, feels, and runs like vista. If your going to run a os of any time u better be able to stomice looking at it for more then 16 hours a day.
sure vista has stuff that Tiger has and linux but Windows still has somthing that nether of them have at all. That out of the box installing of progams like doom3, Hl2, Google Earth, Office 12, Windows Live messanger.
sure OSX witch is by far the best os out there can run stuff like adobe photo shop and there final cut software. here linux as gimp. and any one with any brains at all know that gimp dosen;t even come close to photo shop cs2. and there no real hardware suport and mainly no direct x or any 3d suport for 3d cards. I going to need a OS that I can make a living on and MS windows and osx tiger can fill that unlike linux. And we all know WINE is not good enough, VMware isn't evne close as it dosen;t suport any 3d drivers just gernic ones.
I for one beta test vista and the only think I think is wrong is there trying soo har to restice peoplefomr playing illegal moves and music. Well RIAA and MPAA what the hell were u think when the net first come online.??Weres your brains. The world gave birth to it and no one can stop it now. so why bother trying all your going ot do is make more work for cracker and hacker to fined a loop hole and in the mean time piss people off.
and any one knows ifu donlt want some one to fined it then make sure u can't fined it. If your not able to fined it then the chances are no one will be able to