Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Retracts Private Folder Option
An anonymous reader writes "Just recently, an update to Windows added the option to password-encrypt a personal folder. The intent was to allow users who share PCs to have a measure of privacy, but C|Net reports the company is now removing that functionality with a patch. IT managers hit the roof when the option was added, complaining of the possibility of lost passwords and inaccessible data." From the article: "'Oh great, have they even thought about the impact this could have on enterprises. I'm already trying to frantically find information on this product so that A) I can block to all our desktops and B) figure out how we then support it when users inevitably lose files. I can see the benefit in this product for home users, but it's a bit of a sloppy release by Microsoft,' Stuart Graham said in a posting on Windows Server-related site MSBlog."
If it actually worked as advertised, that'd be something I'd want to use. The correct answer for companies is to 1) forbid its use (just like you wouldn't let employees PGP-encrypt their work), and 2) find out how to disable it in Active Directory. Don't just dike out the functionality, though!
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Oh great, they retracted the article too!
But more seriously... you can still download it here: http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Microsoft_Pri vate_Folder/1152200243/1 (redirects to download.microsoft.com) all that was removed was the HTML download page.
On a related note, are the legions of ZIP tool companies going to retract ZIP encryption or password protection? Other archive format encryption schemes? How about general encryption programs? Oh f***, I wrote a DES implementation once, I'm screwed now aren't I?
I always find it amusing when you have IT people developing features for Windows that really don't understand IT in the real world. Then they release something and are shocked when IT managers are furious over it. One would think MS would have a real good understanding of the IT environment and what is and is not a good idea. Good stuff :)
http://religiousfreaks.com/TrueCrypt is your friend. It's open source, it mounts as a drive and you can even have hidden volumes (so you can deny having stored porn when your gf tells you to show her). It's great.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I recognize that there may be some degree of opprobrium as a result of pointing this out, as most of us here believe in bringing the newest and fastest technology to bear on a given problem. I don't disagree with this approach; indeed, given Moore's Law and costs not dramatically increasing, one would be a fool not to recommend the regular upgrade of hardware and software every two to five years, depending on circumstances.
Irregardless, news such as this points out that sometimes blindly following technology without carefully measuring its implications on IT and data processing can create issues. In the interest of bettering our approach to systems analysis and design, I feel it is important to quote: approximately 90% of the typical activities on 1/3rd of the computer systems out there can take 10-15% longer than performing their equivalents using a 50/50 methodology of planning the computing tasks first, computing the planned tasks second. In other words, you have to know where you are and where you want to be before you purchase and implement new systems; otherwise you not only run the risk of a wasted investment in extra or unnecessary technology (such as private folders when you only need and want public ones) but of having to backtrack and start again to purchase new technology to meet current, previous and future uses.
Unfortunately this seems intuitive but it's not; in fact, in many ways it can actually be seen to be counterintuitive. In other words, it's a balance -- one of considering the importance of keeping pace with current technology while retaining past and projected compatability with previous and anticipated data storage and processing needs.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Why is there an option to adjust view incidence of Apple, but not MS? I would love to be able to have the option to push MS out to the horizon, please?
"...but it's a bit of a sloppy release by Microsoft"
Hate it when that happens...
Couldn't they have just put a warning message/dislaimer in?
This sort of kneejerk reaction, removing a useful feature, is excedingly irritating. It's not users aren't aware of the fact that if you password something, you'll then need to REMEMBER the password...
how do I patch it back in?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I guess they are doing this 1/2 assed for windows vista, but it would be nice to have different home and enterprise OS versions. A decent amount of features have been cut or rolled back because of enterprise. For example, personal folder encryption, wifi synch over activsynch, and I'm sure at least a couple others.
I'm really starting to wonder if windows administrators should be working at my local burger king instead of with computers. It seems an awful lot of MS policy is dictated by these neanderthols. Hey - nice encryption feature added, and admins freak because they don't know how to block it. Sounds like the administrator's fault - they can't keep their users from installing unauthorized software? Encrypted folders should be the LEAST of their worries.
It reminds me of the idiotic microsoft security fix cycle. Every user in the world has to wait for MS patch day because some whiney admins wanted to be able to schedule their vacation time. Hey jackasses - if you don't want to update on a given day, don't update on that day. Why should the rest of us be waiting for a fix to fit someone else's schedule?
I tried this out on my personal computer and the most annoying thing about it is that you have to store it on the desktop.
There are far better third party folder encrypters out there than MPF.
Download it direct: click here.
Or maybe, this is a false-flag operation by the government encourage windows users to use easily breakable encryption? What kind of encryption does this use, anyway?
See this thread: EFS is Microsoft encryption that is also poorly implemented.
I have heard no complaints about TrueCrypt, which is free, open source, developed by people with serious intelligence and dedication, and supports both Windows and Linux.
From my perspective I consider businesses and the IT gestapo all to ready to claim that everything that touches 'their' machines their sole property. The reality is that individuals have a right to privacy and a right to keep certain things to themselves - whichever computing resource they might use. Some companies seem to be run along very fascist lines.
Encrypted folders are not the threat, over inquisitive BOFH and PHB are the threat.
Why do i get the feeling that for "IT managers" at major companies, known for doing things like using the patriot act to snoop myspace/facebook of prospective employees.. and to do far worse to the privacy of current employees, that it's about lost control and lost ability to compromise 110% of employee privacy?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Oh, the humanity.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I dare someone to mod this up.
Windows Private Folders was released with the best of intent, but I can see 3-4 things that would have made it not so controversial.
First, document how it stores/encrypts files. Does it sit on a front-end of an archiver or is it a pass-through encryption similar to what CFS does? What encryption algorithms does it use? WPF needs a lot more documentation.
Second, release a group policy add-on that domain admins can use to restrict or block its use. MS should have released a domain policy add-on a couple weeks before the utility is available, so companies can push out a policy denying use of this utility on their network, or specifying a "master" password using a password or an EFS key for recovery reasons. This utility is good, but on computers owned by a business, this utility can create major liability and regulation issues.
Third, it needs to be written with security in mind. How is the password stored? Is the password hashed, or is the password stored by decrypting part of the file similar to what TrueCrypt does so a hash algorithm failure doesn't compromise security? What mode (ECB, CBC) is the encryption running in? Is the decrypted password stored in secure memory, or can it be swapped to disk?
Windows Private Folders isn't a bad utility, and I wish MS would release a version 2.0 of it that addresses concerns of business domains and some more documentation on how it works -- it is made for an easy to use place for home users to stick files in they don't want others to read. WPF just needed a little more planning behind its release.
Microsoft Windows File Sharing needs to get fixed,
n dows/98me_imgs/properties.jpg
too many wizzard interfaces with Windows XP and Vista hide what is really going on with the settings .
Windows 95 and 98 had a great interface . Sure NTFS wasnt around then , but it was simple for the user
http://www.wellesley.edu/Computing/FileSharing/Wi
So many people Windows XP Home have lost data due to it sharing via Administrator and full rights .
( Yes the common user doesnt want to pay a extra amount for classic file sharing)
The amount of times Ive seen people cut and paste data accross the network ,
in the process losing it off the source PC is amazing .
In the home envoirment most users now use DC++ instead of Windows File sharing ,
its secure, easy and quicker only draw back they have to run a DC++ server .
Isnt it about time a Desktop Windows os finaly removed Server and admin functions :
Remove admin shares ,
dont allow people to share the windows drive ,
Store profiles , bookmarks and data on another partition ,
Remove telnet server
Remove ICS
Remove ISS Webserver
(basicaly a lot of options and stuff that Nlite and XPY does to fix windows bloat)
Also another thing that beginers mixed with Windows file sharing is when DHCP fails
on class C network , instead of re trying to askin the user , it goes to a class b 169.x.x.x IP
------------------------
Charliebrownau
http://charliebrownau.livejournal.com/
MS seems to have forgotten who their real customer is.
They didn't make controlling this easy enough for that customer.
Security solutions need to be thought out a bit more carefully.
What about using backdoored crypto with corporate issued keys? Wouldn't this make most everyone happy?
I am not the world's foremost Windows licensing guru, but I have an option on my XP Pro laptop which lets me encrypt files and directories.
How is the retracted update different from the functionality which I have seen in-place since I bought the machine a year ago?
Kid-proof tablet..
Exactly. Power tripping admins crying about Sarbanes Oxley or whatever the alarmist flavor of the month is and that they need access to every file on the network. Fortunately, saner heads prevail at most companies.
Truly, I can't think of bigger bunch of whiners than IT guys (web devs come close).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
It's a shame that Microsoft caved in to the whining of the IT control freaks. There are legitimate reasons to encrypt sensitive information, even in the corporate setting. If you think that the possession of the Administrator password means that you should have unfettered access to every scrap of data on the network, you need to see a psychiatrist about your delusions.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Sometimes its about obsessive-compulsive lockdown freaks, but unfortunately in a number of businesses, IT *has* to be control freaks so the business doesn't get fined out of existance and people put in prison. Banks, hospitals, and other industries have to be very careful not to run afoul of HIPAA, Sox or other laws, unless they want the SEC to start coming in with a motion of discovery in hand to start auditing, and hit the company with very high fines should even a single financial E-mail have been deleted instead of being archived for seven years. No company wants the SEC or some audit board to start going through every file, folder, or hard disk, so its pretty normal for an IT group to be heavy-handed.
I haven't used Windows in a couple of years. Could someone please enlighten me as to the difference between this and the NTFS encrypted files / folders that have been available since Windows 2000?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How is the retracted update different from the functionality which I have seen in-place since I bought the machine a year ago?
Log on as a user. "encrypt" a file.
Log on as an administrator. Go try and read that file.
With MS's new toy, that wouldn't happen.
I'm thinking more along the lines of ..
"companies like at&t, verizon, and other telcos sharing your info with the NSA *have* to be lockdown freaks or those dirty whistleblowers will get them fines and prison"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I might be no expert in this area, but ... let's see...
... how?
1. Patch for data encryption feature.
2. User using data encryption.
3. Patch for removial of data encryption.
4. User accessing his encrypted data
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But why are enterprise end users installing software? Dont blame Microsoft for your problems.
Why are you frantically trying to block something you dont know about - why dont you solve that problem by only allowing the software that has been approved? Why are there people that still dont understand that if a user can install appX, they can install virusX too? I mean really, you do understand this right?
This was a home user product. IT wasnt intended for businesses.
Instead of pitching a fit about new Microsoft software, why don't "I.T. Managers" do their jobs and manage the damn I.T.? Really. There are complex problems in I.T. for large businesses, but this is absolutely not one of them. Microsoft has given them the ability to manage software isntallations for years now. It's very simple, really. Users who cannot be trusted to install software like "Private Folder" without exposing the enterprise to increased risk of data loss should not have permission to install software. Full stop.
Is it really easier to shout at Microsoft than restrict users? Because shouting at Microsoft won't prevent users from using the dozens of equivalent apps available for download from other companies unless you also restrict users appropriately.
.sig: file not found
I gave you the 25 cents for using the word "opprobrium", however, I had to take it back when you said "Irregardless" instead of just "Regardless".
The correct way is to simply say, "Regardless, news such as this..."
Your net score is $0.00. Please try harder next time.
Thx.
It's not poorly documented, you fuckwits and others like you are just incapable of reading any fucking documentation. EFS is implemented via standards. Encryption is handled through x509 certificates which are readily available from the personal certificates store on the system. The EFS documentation plainly recommends that you back these certificates up.
p pro/deploy/cryptfs.mspx
Google + "Windows EFS" = first link
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winx
If it's not in man format, translated poorly like furniture directions from Ikea, apparently it doesn't exist.
Unless all decryption keys are registered on the domain controller.
What's up with that?
> IT managers hit the roof when the option was added
All you pr0n are belong to us!
...that they "inevitably" will loose files?
XP Home edition cannot encrypt files
I'm not sure what the other guy ment by "user encrypt file, admin try read file"- in XP by defualt the admin wil not be able to read the file - the recovery agent is no longer required in XP
The recovery agent needs to be created before the files were encypted
In Windows 2000, yeah, then the admin could do that.
Also, in XP, if you force a password reset, you will not be able to recover you EFS files unless you have a backup of your certificate.
Curious slashdot readers might find the following of interest:
s ystem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganographic_file_
Imagine the reaction of IT Managers if Microsoft were to include this in Windows.
Poor Windows admins, someone else is in control of their computers. My updated operating system has this new feature I don't want, and now I'm having a hard time trying to make it go away! Insane.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Let them use it, any moron loses his password or otherwise screws up with it, they go on the short list for the next outsourcing/layoff round.
Really, this is 2006, IT should be weeding out incompetents by now. As things go, this actually seemed a fairly good idea, especially for employees who have to both carry laptops around and are also forced to try and protect more-sensitive data. And for home users it also seemed a good idea.
I was not impressed.
Machine locked up when trying to change password. Apparently Symantec AntiVirus 9's AutoProtect feature was the problem. (Disabling AutoProtect lets you change the password.) Because Private Folder 1.0 is not officially supported by Microsoft, there is no way to report this isssue.
Microsoft Private Folder 1.0 has an option to export encrypted files. The files remain encrypted, but the password must somehow be embedded in the exported files since you can go to a different computer with Private Fodler 1.0 installed to decrypt the files. HOWEVER, if hard drive crashes and you need to use data recovery software (R-Stuio, GetDataBack, etc.) there is no straight forward way of decrypting the files even if you know the password. Boot a machine with BartPE to look at the "My Private Folder" directory and the encrypted files look different than exported files (which leads me to think the password is embedded in the exported files). If you copy and paste encrypted files to that directory from BartPE/WinPE, you can make the data "unrecoverable"....
If I had mod points and hadn't already posted, that would be getting a +1 insightful striaght away.
'irregardless' IS a properly constructed word. It means 'not regardless', which is not, I'm sure, what he meant to convey.
I always find it amusing when you have IT people developing features for Windows that really don't understand IT in the real world. Then they release something and are shocked when IT managers are furious over it. One would think MS would have a real good understanding of the IT environment and what is and is not a good idea.
Many IT administrators are barely-in-the-closet fascists. They enjoy making sure that their user bases have no privacy, cannot use their organizations phones or computers for anything that isn't "strictly business", are constantly under surveillance at the workplace, etc. These admins are usually on power trips -- they are usually hated by the users of the systems they (supposedly) support and those users often take pleasure in working against them in subtle (or at least anonymous) ways. These "Users versus IT Gestapo" situations are often entertaining to observe, as long as one isn't part of the problem.
At the other extreme are the system and network administrators who allow (even encourage) users to do (or install) whatever they damn well please on their workstations (unless the action is obviously malicious or illegal). These admins must be masochistic -- the more computer illiterate the user base, the more likely it will figure out ways to create problems which require a week's worth of IT's time to correct, on a daily or even hourly basis. These nearly anarchistic computing environments are a lot of fun while they last -- which is rarely for longer than it takes for an oh-so-clever user to crash a server, delete someone else's files, sell organizational secrets, buy a drop-in pr0n site package and run it on the facilities at the workplace, make (what she thinks are) anonymous death threats, etc.
Somewhere in the middle are the administrators who can usually leave their work at the office at the end of the day but who don't mind if users want to access and maybe save personal email messages or other files from work (where the spiffy color laser printer sometimes gets used to print pictures of a worker's newborn baby or a photo that an employee wants to hand in his cube), and realize that most sane people don't truly compartmentalize their work and personal lives; that overlap is normal and natural, usually inevitable, and often beneficial -- that most folks want/expect some personal privacy in the workplace and to be cut a little slack when using office resources for personal reasons.
As someone who has tried to fall into that third, loosely defined group of IT administrators/managers when I've held such positions, I find it to be worth the effort to do the balancing/juggling act. Then again, I'm a practical libertarian and not a compulsively anal authoritarian by nature.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
The one new Windows feature of that last 10 years that I was interested in, and it lasts all of a week.
Maybe I need to look closer at Vista Home. At this rate it will have better privacy than the Professional version.
Gee, I can't even download, much less install, *anything*.msi behind our firewall (which makes both the Berlin and Great Walls look like garden decorations). So maybe M$ is responding to inept or poor "IT managers" - in which case there's the real problem.
For the home users, this sounds suspiciously like the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld - "You, no privacy for YOU!"
User: "But I need to protect my personal information from my kids on my home system so they won't use my credit cards to buy every PS3 game in the known universe."
Privacy Nazi: "You didn't say 'Please!' No privacy for YOU! Go to Blue Screen!"
Some of the guys who do stand up routines for IT companies are probably going to have some fun with this one, too.
"So personel can't protect your personal stuff in a personal personel file, right?"
Response: "No privacy for YOU! You are being too personal, personel!"
Who's on 01? What's on 10, and I don't know's on 101...?
Lee Darrow, C.H.
Chicago, IL
If admins are this worried about such a usefull feature being used within companies, then there's still a very simple way to deal with it; make it crystal clear that any data lost due to this feature is simply tough luck, or, if they're really frantic about it, that any use of this feature will lead to immediate termination of contract.
I mean, they do this (have company policy) for porn-browsing, right ? Are admins so concerned about lost productivity due to happy browsing ? No - they're too busy doing it themselves usually, and it doesn't affect them (just the company bottom line).
I anything, I think MS should expand this feature into their whole network-/groupware-thinking, namely; have windows shares that are public to certain sections of users, and are gibberish to the others.
And if all else fails, MS could release a tool that tells the admin that the folder has been encrypted (when it scours the network at night) so that unauthorized use of the feature can be discovered, or, indeed, create a tool that can decrypt such folders within a larger (company-) setting.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Well, Win XP anyway has a "Make this folder private " under "Local Sharing & security" [Right click folder for this option].
But I myself havent been able to try it as "Make this folder private " check box is greyed out for me.
Wincopy
I work at a small company, where my role only requires me to spend part of my time as an IT admin. I take this same approach, and find it's mutually beneficial. Users don't have install rights, but I also will install things on individual workstations that people ask for. (They actually used to have install rights on their personal workstations - not if they logged into others - but I had to take it away because they'd blindly install some web background program that would install 30 spyware applications. They were understanding when I removed that right after they saw the damage it caused). I've helped people setup their personal email accounts in thunderbird.
I've read articles talking about how if you don't allow people time to do personal tasks at work, that instead of taking 5 or 10 or even 30 minutes of work time, they'll take a sick or vacation day to catch up on errands, and I can see this happening. Personally I don't really mind fixing a server issue on the weekend or late at night, because I'm afforded this flexibility at work. At some offices, as soon as it hits 5:00pm, everyone drops what they're doing and goes home.. that's just a sad situation. It's not that people should be expected to work late, or work exactly their 8 hours per day, but if, for example, a task will take 20 minutes to finish before you go home, versus 45 minutes if you have to start in the morning when it's no longer fresh in your mind, it's better to stay the 20 minutes. In a company where workers are prohibited from doing anythink but work on company time, they're obviously not going to be willing to go the other way, and sacrifice their personal time for work.
Speak before you think
chmod 700
Tada!
"IT managers hit the roof when the option was added, complaining of the possibility of inaccessible data."
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
plasmacutter,
Why do you have an expectation of privacy for space on a hard drive paid for by your employer? Why don't you just store private data on a device that you personally have paid for and leave your employer's gear for work purposes only?
Surely that is the very sort of company which should be using encryption, strong passwords, file audit trails (where every change to 'important' files are logged, together with who made the change) etc.
IT managers are the workplace equivalent of administrators on internet forums?
"Don't run exes or I'll TELL THE MODS on you!!!oneone"
I installed Age of Mythology (also from MS) on XP and it demanded Administrator rights.
this feature of being able to encrypt your data is awesome.
i can't see why this is a bad thing. see all the news about
stolen laptops and resulting ID theft.
god good man, you're being paid to take care of the users
computer and the network. you don't own it. it is a tool, like
a pen or rule etc a business needs to run.
STOP dumbing down the computer and just assuming users are dumb.
your job is to make computers and network work and to educate
the user. no use in giving them a desktop like in the movie
"equlibrium".
you work in IT? you're a freaking SLAVE! if u can't cope with it
find another job where you can exercise your godly needs!
(obviously a company employee doesn't need admin rights, but
requesting everybody, to only use their right hand for the mouse,
hop into the office on one foot etc. are just silly "requirments".
things will always break sooner or later, so some IT managers just
decide dis-allow driving a car, because, you know it will break
down.)
GO for more liberty to end-user and GO for some more serious
work for the IT department. GO encryption!
last note if you want to dumb down the user computer, by god, use
brain-dead thin-clients.
That's the least of the problems with the second paragraph. I tried to parse it several times and couldn't get any (non-trivial) meaning out of it at all.
I am feeling kind of cranky today, though...
You just use steganography to hide the video game walkthroughs and Linux HOWTOs in a bunch of barnyard porn. She'll never find them.
It's not the user's data, it's the employer's data. So, when the user "loses" the data, it's the employer who is out, not the user.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
But this is already possible? Set NTFS to encrypt your folder of choice, and it will be encrypted and protected by the user's login password. Would this simply let a user to protect a folder with a different password than the normal one, and that's all the news there is to this feature?
I can understand if this cancelled feature would've been more risky from an admin's perspective though, because I assume (I haven't checked this in practice) that if you forget your user login on Windows, once an admin resets the password and the user picks a new one, he/she can still access the encrypted data. I.e. it's encrypted by some form of user token, not a specific password?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I don't remember hearing any complaints about the File Vault functionality in Mac OS X. How is this different?
Realistically, it is often better to let users know that they are not being treated like a bunch of slaves, crooks, children or sheep at the workplace, but that management and IT administration have the right and ability to lock things down at any time for any reason. More importantly, it helps to let users know how public some of the activities they naively think are private actually are.
Pointing out to a user that her favorite screensaver or wallpaper image comes from an external (to the organization) source that is not to be trusted, and showing her a relatively easy to read headline article on a major Web site she's heard of that details how such external connections cause real problems serves a couple of major purposes. It shows that you aren't making rules just because you can (or enjoy lording them over hapless users) and also encourages her to learn more about computers, how they work on the 'Net, and computer security.
I prefer education to enforcement as my primary means of preventing internally generated IT hassles. If users have to be treated like dumb and/or malicious animals, why would one want to be working in IT for such an organization? Most organizations, unlike public schools and correctional institutions, do not have to allow just anybody more than guest access to their systems. Don't expect to get much useful work out of users who are treated like school kids or convicts, but do expect to see them strive for excellence as they develop innovative ways to get around your rules/edicts, just as children and felons do in other areas of real life.
Oh, yeah, a good system administrator should study Sun Tzu's The Art of War, everything I posted above notwithstanding...just in case it comes to that.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
Every time I see someone post these scenarios, I sigh because I've run into and solved them all. ActiveX controls are easily deployable to machines, and they don't require admin rights to run - they require admin rights to install.
the FBI's back door (installed of course to protect us from terrorists) to get into an encrypted private folder.
Rick B.
Just for the record, Mac OS X has the ability to encrypt a user's home directory... and, for the IT managers,
"Company administrators can set up a computer-wide master password as a safeguard in the event someone forgets his or her login password." Corporate IT management problem apparently solved.
Personally, given the numerous recent stories of thefts and losses of laptops with sensitive information (TIAA customer files, VA patient data, etc). I would have thought corporate IT managers would be begging users to encrypt their data.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Nice quote from Stuart Graham there, complaining about all the extra work he now (alledgedly) has.
I replied to him on that site. If he's not running a decent group policy to stop non-admin users from installing any old crap on their machines, he deserves all the extra work he gets. If he's any kind of enterprise sysadmin, he wouldn't even bat an eyelid at this piece of software.
because i'm a human being and i deserve basic rights and dignity in my place of work?
Granted I'm not saying I'm entitled to ownership of the company, just basic human rights, and just because your employer pays for something doesnt mean they have a right to snoop on your uses of it..
case and point.. cameras are not allowed in employee restrooms either
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
How is this any different from users forgetting the passwords to their computer?
I know that windows lets you make (For home edition at least) a "password reset disc". Basically, you make this disc and if you ever forget your password, you insert the disc and click "use password reset disc" and it resets your password.
The same thing could be applied to these password protected folders.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
not to be too pedantic, as I laughed when I read it, but this is wrong: Who's on 01? What's on 10, and I don't know's on 101...? it should actually be "I don't know' s on 11. There's not five bases in baseball.
The real problem was not that this feature allowed the user to encrypt a folder, but they hadn't yet released the ability to decrypt the folder. That functionality was going to be part of Vista. Since it's been removed from the Vista features list, they had to remove it form the XP update.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Does storing personal encrypted data on someone else's computer qualify as a basic human right?
# an erroneous redundancy for regardless. www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/Par tThree/Letters/I.htm
# regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I have heard no complaints about TrueCrypt, which is free, open source, developed by people with serious intelligence and dedication, and supports both Windows and Linux.
While I do use TrueCrypt, I'd say it has one serious flaw compared with the system in question as I understand it: you need to allocate space to your encrypted files in advance. If you misestimate your space requirement, you either end up with multiple volumes, wasted disk space or having to move around a load of files between two volumes when you recreate a new one of a better size. That kind of management overhead is undesirable.
I like PhonebookFS under Linux, because it stores your encrypted data in multiple small files on your standard FS to allow it to shrink and grow as required. Unfortunately it isn't available for Windows and is kind-of slow if you want to do anything with large files.
Oh, and one who wanted me to make his laptop work on battery, indefinitely, without external power.
- sigh -
when by "someone else's computer" you mean my personally assigned workstation, yes.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It gets the users used to encrypting their folders, and how great that is, for when MS introduces a file system that encrypts EVERYTHING at the behest of the MPAA/RIAA content Nazis.
I'm still convinced that Vista hasn't been released because they can't make it palatable to the consumer, not because they can't make it work.
Toro!
The more Microsoft wedges everyone's desktop into the narrower needs of a one-size-fits-all corporate IT model, the more opportunities Linux has to suit the increasingly diverse Personal Computer userbase.
--
make install -not war
The Admins know that if a management type encrypts his own data and forgets his own password, he still considers them responsible. They are responsible for, if not actually in control of, everything that happens in the computer or on the network. The "it's your own damned fault" argument does not work with management, because management isn't wrong, ever, when they're talking to an underling at the help desk. And yes, Admins could block the feature via Active Directory and lock down everyone's configuration, but if the option is available then managers will hear about it and want it for themselves. They'll think "oh, I'm a security-conscious, forward-looking manager," and you can't exactly tell the boss "Ma'am, I don't really think you're smart enough to remember your own password, and you're a backstabbing jerk, so you'll blame me when you screw this up, so no, you can't install this feature." That sort of statement, though laden with integrity and higher truth, does not portend well for one's career. So IT admins are damn smart to try to get this removed from the OS altogether.
you know.. damn the karma.. im beginning to notice a pattern of conservative hordes modding my comments down rather than contesting my points.
Partisan mods should be filtered out, i guess the metamod system is not fulfilling its function.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Didn't read the link, which documents the problems, all of which are verified by Microsoft.
How much space is for your personal use? If you ran a company, would you spell that amount out in the employment contract?
[Slashdot] is my sanctuary from the rest of the internet.
You poor, poor man.
This particular product was only able to be downloaded if you have WGA installed. Since none of us have / want that, what is the problem?
How do I know? I went to try and download it and it required me to install WGA before I could even download the patch.
So I said "F.CK YOU MS" and left it alone.
The right solution is to implement a group policy setting that can be applied by admins (the very admins that are complaining about this feature) which disables the feature completly.
I can see business concerns with the privacy folder business.
If a business is sued, they might need information in that encrypted folder for their case. Either because it is important for their defense, or the information has been requested by the court. There maybe legal ramifications if information is stored on a company PC, and the company cannot unencrypt that information.
I can also imagine problems of users being able to mine proprietary information about the company and then storing it in a file in that encrypted folder. It would make it very easy to compile company information, and not get caught.
dont bring minutia into this.. people are entitled to basic individual rights and it doesnt matter how the employment contract is deliniated.
Contracts cannot demand indentured servitude in the US (though i'm sure certain people want that problem solved), and they should not abridge human dignity either.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Do you mean 'chmod 0700'? I think you need a zero at the beginning of the number to denote that it is octol [sic].
...
... Any omitted digits are assumed to be leading zeros ... The first digit selects the set user ID (4) and set group ID (2) and sticky (1) attributes"
Here's an idea, you could run "man chmod" and find out
"A numeric mode is from one to four OCTAL digits
It would have taken 10 seconds to check that before trying to show up the grandparent post.
Ok, when I come to work for you must provide terabyte for personal use. Anything less is abridging my human dignity.
wow.. nice absurdity..
when you feel like not being intellectually dishonest and making a plausible point, do so.
for the record.. I fail to see how a demand for basic privacy becomes morphed by you into a demand for a terrabyte of storage.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Sorry that you feel that way. I have two leadership modes. Where it involves lives, prison time, fines, or loss of my job, I'm an authoritarian every time. For any thing else, I'm democratic (cooperative). If you have a problem with that, find another patsy.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Hmm, I wonder if it was IT managers or Men in black outfits telling them they know someone in the DOJ that help or hurt that changed MS mind?
well.. the problem is.. if the activity could involve fines, prison time, lives, or the loss of your job then its a mistake that you.. or the company whose illegal or deadly line youre towing.. should not have been involved in.
I'm not saying every whistleblower is right, or everyone is on the side of good here when it comes to hoarding information privately, but people should have enough privacy and self determination to divulge information if they find it ethically reprehensible enough to risk it.
In the same way, that's the reason why cars are capable of speeding. Sure it's wrong to race someone at 150 mph for a place in traffic.. but it's arguably right to race at 150 mph to get away from a gun wielding psycho.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Private Folder 1.0 was designed as a benefit for customers running genuine Windows," Microsoft said in a statement to CNET News.com on Friday.
As in: once we decide that we think you're running a pirated version of Windows, we're going to erase all of your passwords and important files.
-1 curmudgeon
They think they are so smart but they are just drones who only know how to read manuals punch numbers in to text edits. Their solution to difficult problems is to wait for the next patch.
Microsoft forgot that other companies treat there users like dumb shits and don't want to face up to the facts.
People, stop being fucking elite about the computers. I have worked with people who are scared to do anything with the computers becasuse of IT's attitude.
Here is a clur, tell the people if they use it and loose the password the data is gone. Most people will get that. If they don't and they loose valuable data too bad. They'll catch on, or they will be shown the door.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Eventually, M$ is going to f'up enough that they piss off a large company with well-paid lawyers on retainer. They will do their usual "overwhelming force" legal response, but one unsympathetic judge or jury could decide to bite them in the wallet hard, and not just in the "business as usual" amounts that the EU fines are. Microsoft pushes the limit as often as they think that they can get away with it. It's risky behavior, and I would love to see the Big Bite in the Ass upon them, much as I hate lawyers
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
Hate to break it to you but the only way the autoupdate feature works in firefox is if it's a binary distribution. I'm running Gentoo and it's completely unavailable in the source code version (greyed out) because of the many differences between versions and what is actually on the system.
So the only way to get autoupates working is to use the binary versions, which don't happen to be as fast or sleek as the locally compiled version that's fully optimized for my system and not some generic i386 setup.
This kind of backward thinking is what happened when IT support professionals complained about automatic updates, and forced MS to turn them off in XP gold. If you keep letting your users be babies, you will keep getting hacked. Learn to punish them for breaking things, and they might learn.
This software is still downloadable. I found it at http://download.kayfisher.ca/ and http://download.techx2.ca/. Ironically, both these sites are owned by the same person.