Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Digital Restrictions Management in Office 11 650

Posted by michael from the can't-touch-this dept.
conaone writes "According to a Microsoft Watch, there is a feature in the leaked Office 2003 called "Information Rights Management." A lot more control over documents with this... the story says: "Microsoft is threading DRM throughout the Office 2003 suite, allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages, as well as on Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents. Using "permission templates," document authors can determine restriction policies to be applied to entire categories of documents, according to Microsoft's site." Here's a link to the whole story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Restrictions Management in Office 11 More

Digital Restrictions Management in Office 11

Comments Filter:

  • This shouldn't concern anyone on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:42PM (#5356198)
    Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?

    • Re:This shouldn't concern anyone on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twert ( 472587 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:54PM (#5356349)
      Of course your are forgetting the most anoying thing about being in IT.... "You know some thing about computers, can explain why I can't print this e-mail" I can see the stupid questions pileing up now.

      (Does it look like I work at for the help-desk?)

    • Re:This shouldn't concern anyone on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MikeXpop ( 614167 ) <mike AT redcrowbar DOT com> on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:00PM (#5356439) Journal
      Wrong. The majority of /. readers use Windows [slashdot.org]. Besides, even for those of us who don't use any Microsoft products at all, it's always good to know. Keep in mind slashdot is News for nerds, not News for Linux users.

    • *Why* this shouldn't concern anyone on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:16PM (#5356605) Journal
      Because this will undoubtedly be cracked within a month, tops. There's a good chance it's already been cracked based on the betas -- and Slashdot posting it *ensures* that every techie that didn't already know about it does.

      Heck, *I* woulda cracked it if I had a copy sitting around and had any interest in Office, just for the egg-on-your-face factor affecting Microsoft when they try selling their "strong" security to companies.

      You cannot do secure DRM in the current computing environment. *Maybe* with Palladium in place. Definitely not now.

      The only benefit I can see this giving Microsoft is a legal excuse to make their file formats *incompatible* with everyone else, and anyone else implementing support for their file formats being liable under the DMCA.

      Office is Microsoft's bread and butter, and incompatibility is the worker that brings it home each day.

      • First use of DMCA to protect file format (Score:5, Informative)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:30PM (#5356738) Journal
        Incidently, this may be the first time someone's tried using the DMCA to enforce *file format* incompatibility. MS has done it before with copyrights (claiming that the C header files in wine used to implement Win32 were "derivative" of their own header files), with trade secrets (claiming that the "open" spec for their Kerberos modifications were protected as a "trade secret" and that no one else could implement it). It's been done before with patents (people claiming that an executable packer uses a patented algorithm). The special cases the DMCA puts into law are the only fork of IP that hasn't yet been used to try to ensure incompatibility.

        Oh, and I dunno what MS's lawyers were threatening Nullsoft with if they didn't disable their "save to WAV" feature whenever users play a WMA file in WinAmp, but that theoretically could have been patent claims, so this may be a grand slam for MS in terms of misapplying IP law to screw the consumer if they try to go with a competitor's product -- they alone will have covered the entire gamut.

        • Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?

          • Re:NOT First use of DMCA to protect file format (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ibbey ( 27873 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @09:49PM (#5358053) Homepage
            Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?

            Not really. The PDF file format is an open format. Anyone can make PDF tools. Skylorav didn't crack the file format, he cracked the optional encryption that the file MAY contain.

            There is a key difference: Microsoft has repeatedly tried to prevent other companies from being able to read/write their file formats. By including DRM in the file format, Microsoft could be setting up the chance to sue OpenOffice (for example) in the event they include Office interoperability.

            The interesting thing (to me) is that until I read this post, I though that this was really not a big deal. I actually think Office is a good place for DRM. Having the ability to place some limitations on who can read my business documents is a good thing. If it weren't for the DMCA, I would say that this is a case of people overreacting just because MS is involved. Unfortunately, the DMCA changes all that. Microsoft will almost certainly use this as a tool to prevent interoperability, and there's probably not a thing anyone can do to stop them.

            • Re:NOT First use of DMCA to protect file format (Score:5, Insightful)

              by LordSah ( 185088 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @10:30PM (#5358221)
              DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on. The plain old Word format is still there, as is the new Office11 XML Word format.

              Will DRM documents work in OpenOffice? Nope. BUT: Will the other formats that Office11 uses (by default)? Yep. Is Microsoft going to force anyone to use DRM? Nope. Does this mean that groups that have MSOffice and OpenOffice can still inter-operate? Yep.

              Given that, is this some evil scheme to take over the world? Nope. Seriously, folks around here need to take a breather. Believe it or not, MS can just stick features in their products only because it makes them more attractive to their customers. Not everything MS does is geared towards destroying Linux/taking over the world.

    • Re:This shouldn't concern anyone on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @07:42PM (#5357333)
      Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?

      Right. But check the CNet article [com.com] - the name of this feature is Rights Management Service - RMS! I wouldn't want to be Microsoft right now; that's crossing the line.

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:42PM (#5356200) Homepage
    ...perhaps I missed it, but if the new file format of Office 11 documents is all XML-based, then how is it they can "restrict" the documents? Isn't it all just text?
    • They could restrict it at file system level. I think this is part of the Palladium thing - that's why it's built into the OS.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by porkface ( 562081 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:48PM (#5356278) Journal
      The docs are text/XML, but they wrap them with DRM, which is just like any other encryption except that it has meta-info/rules included. To get at the text/XML, you have to be authorized via the DRM system on the machine. Palladium provides hardware that makes the DRM system less vulnerable to hacks.

  • What the heck is going to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krray ( 605395 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:43PM (#5356202)
    What's going to happen when people don't update? Or only a small portion update and people keep complaining to them that they can't read their documents? Or they have to down-save their documents to share with the world making the DRM garbage null and void?

    For this to really don't don't we all really just have to switch? I know I'm not going to allow this release in my company...

    • Re:What the heck is going to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:49PM (#5356288)
      What's going to happen when people don't update?

      Well, how likely is that? Someone will update, then he'll produce some unreadable files, and since the next guy wants to read the files he'll have to upgrade. Maybe he'll hold out for a while, but he'll get fed-up having to complain to people about this pretty soon.

      That tactic has always worked for MS before - for the vast majority of users, there isn't a single feature in the last three "updates" which they actually want to use...

    • Re:What the heck is going to happen? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:51PM (#5356322)
      Actually, the DRM in Office idea makes a lot of sense. It will allow governments and corporations strong control over who can read electronic versions of documents, preventing information leaks. After Office 11 there might never be another "Pentagon Papers" type scandal because the government could just cut printing rights to sensitive documents. Companys will no longer have to worry about internal memos ending up on FuckedCompany.

      DRM is probably the killer app Microsoft needed to get all those companies still running Office 97 and Office 2000 to upgrade, and once they buy it, they will have to upgrade to keep the DRM working. This is way cool stuff.

      • Re:What the heck is going to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jgerman ( 106518 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:01PM (#5356450)
        I for one am not about to bet national security on whether or not MS can implement a bug free security procedure. As far as FuckedCompany goes, you can't trust the information on that site anyway, it's 90% fabricated. I worked for a company that ended up on the site, and the majority of the posts were from people who still worked there and were pulling the chains of those who read the site religiously.


        This is NOT way cool stuff. What happens in 10 years when documents that haven't been viewed in the past five revisions suddenly become relevant and can't be read? What happens when MS starts "extending" their DRM implementations with every service pack?

        • Re:What the heck is going to happen? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Didion Sprague ( 615213 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:13PM (#5356576)
          I don't understand this.

          You mean to tell me that MS has disable the copy-and-paste, too?

          Seriously. Why couldn't I just copy-and-paste my secret memo into a text file and then forward it to FuckedCompany or AssWipeMemos or whatever Pud's pimping.

          It's interesting, though. All this DRM/IRM/whatever you want to call it is turning the computer into a block of metal and plastic. I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altair and the Osbourne MicroAce and the Commodore PET with the plastic keyboards -- and I'm troubled by this gradual shift from "hobbyist computers" to -- essentially -- blocks of metal that can only be used to do whatever corporations tell us we can do.

          Anyway, fuck it.

          If they disable copy-and-paste in Word 11, then it's useless.

          And why oh why can't Microsoft add EndNote functionality into their word processing software? For fuck's sake. They've added everything *but* a decent bibliographic manager. I keep hoping the next version of Word would actually add useful features for people who -- imagine that -- write for a living.

          • You mean to tell me that MS has disable the copy-and-paste, too? Seriously. Why couldn't I just copy-and-paste my secret memo into a text file and then forward it to FuckedCompany or AssWipeMemos or whatever Pud's pimping.

            Go google for "mandatory access control" vs "discretionary access control". Basically, if you have clearance to create top-secret documents, you CAN'T (the OS won't let you) create documents at a lower clearance level; sure, you can cut and paste, but only into another top-secret document.

            Jon.

        • And the DoD isn't going to bet national security on this either. If you really don't want some data to get out, YOU DON'T TYPE IT UP AND GIVE IT TO PEOPLE. DRM in Office is going to let them use Office as they currently are, and lessen the risk of data leakage. That's it.

      • Re:What the heck is going to happen? (Score:5, Funny)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:08PM (#5356507) Homepage Journal
        Companys will no longer have to worry about internal memos ending up on F**kedCompany.

        Or in courtrooms where they can be highly useful in convicting scumbags like the executives at Enron or WorldNet. Or revealing, such as those escaped memos from Microsoft which were worded something like, "Craig, Linux scares the f**k out of me, just like Java did, co-opt it and kill it, embrace and extend if we have to, but kill it. --Bill PS: Be over for dinner Tues., We're going to roast Stutz on a spit."

        Of course you could probably still just bring up the appropriate document, hit ALT-PrintScreen, then paste it in Paint and send the .bmp to anyone you like.

        More likely it'll work out the usual way, though, you can't crack it on your desktop, but if you leave your PC on, overnight, with IIS running, the cracker elves will unlock it for you by morning. That always works.

      • the DRM in Office idea makes a lot of sense
        The main question is, who is the "keeper of the keys"? Who is able to unlock all the protective measures on secret or confidential documents?
        Guess who.
        If you consider that, the "protection" has exactly zero value for
        governments and corporations.
        They still need to develop their own mechanisms of protection if they really care about their data.
      • After Office 11 there might never be another "Pentagon Papers" type scandal because the government could just cut printing rights to sensitive documents. Companys will no longer have to worry about internal memos ending up on FuckedCompany.

        Unless:

        1) Someone reads the document, remembers it, and later recalls it at a non DRM computer.

        2) Someone takes a photograph of the screen. Seen sony's tiny little cameras lately?

        3) Someone uses a pencil and paper.

        The only thing this does is make it inconvenient to leak secrets. This does not make it difficult. This is still a good feature, as it is currently more convenient to violate secure channels than to follow them. But it's not stopping any leaks whatsoever.
      • Er, cut printing rights?

        Easy enough to get around, if not by using the PrtScn key, then by taking a hires digital photograph and posting that image.
      • It will allow governments and corporations strong control over who can read electronic versions of documents, preventing information leaks.

        Okay, but shouldn't access controls be handled at the filesystem level, rather than the application level?

        Between NT's duak System and Discretionary ACLs, file permissions on modern Windows systems are already robust (and confusing!) enough. I don't see how adding YET ANOTHER layer of complexity into the Office documents themselves provides any benefit.
      • DRM != security.

        DRm technologies are not going to prevent documents from falling into the wrong hands. The security model for DRM is weak and depends on a lot of factors that are outside the control of the party that is trying to protect that information.

        Using DRM to secure information is selling snake oil.

      • Actually, the DRM in Office idea makes a lot of sense.
        Well, until someone realizes that all they need to bypass even the strongest document DRM system is a digital camera and some OCR software.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:43PM (#5356206)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:I just bought a new laptop (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ducon Lajoie ( 30475 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:48PM (#5356276)
      I'm sorry to inform you that, while I like my OS X, QuickTime has had DRM built-in for a while.

  • Yes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrEd ( 60684 ) <<tonedog> <at> <hailmail.net>> on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:44PM (#5356214)
    There's demand in any organization for digital rights management... you want to restrict modifying the purchase order forms to the accounting department, but make them globally readable? Check.


    Not all DRM is about P2P.

    • Re:Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 )
      Umm, that's already in windows.

      Set permissions to the .xls/.doc to readonly for the groups that need it and other for others. They can copy the order forms and then modify them, but they'll be able to do that will DRM enabled Office. (or if not, it shouldn't be a difficult hack to read and save the doc somehow)

      Instead of having permissions on the fielsystem they're now in the filesystem and in the file. woo hoo.

    • Re:Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrinkDr.Pepper ( 620053 )
      There's demand in any organization for digital rights management... you want to restrict modifying the purchase order forms to the accounting department, but make them globally readable? Check.

      chgrp accounting *
      chmod 664 *

  • There's legitimate uses ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b0r1s ( 170449 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:44PM (#5356216) Homepage
    Everyone here is going to complain along the lines of "this makes it impossible for people who aren't using Office 11 to read these documents". That's absolutely right, but it makes sense.

    This is a damn good idea from a business perspective.

    First, it forces people still using office 97 and office 2000 to upgrade to office 2003, which is a huge win economically.

    Second, it adds the ability to slow the spread of confidential documents. It certainly won't stop it altogether, but it's a nice marketing ploy, and it'll certainly be used by many corporations.

    Whether you like it or not, this is classic microsoft: taking a relatively simple idea (document management) and making it marketable.

    • Re:There's legitimate uses ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:57PM (#5356390)
      >First, it forces people still using office 97 and office 2000 to upgrade to office 2003, which is a huge win economically.

      how in the hell is it a good idea from MY businesses perspective?

      oh.. you must work for Microsoft... yes.. from THEIR perspective, *forcing* people to upgrade to 2003 is a huge win, economically.

      for the rest of us - i'm not finding a good fscking reason to drop $x00 * (# of machines) on the latest version of Office when 97 is just fine.

      No matter what the Little Man from Microsoft tells you - IRM doesn't address ANY problems of information security - trusting the users who have the info. If you can't trust them to begin with, then you should give it to them/allow them access to it to begin with. Security 101.

      besides - without hardware to impliment this - i give it the obligatory week before its hacked.
    • Whether you like it or not, this is classic microsoft: taking a relatively simple idea (document management) and making it marketable.

      s/microsoft/business/g

  • funniest thing about this.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:45PM (#5356228)
    C|Net's article [com.com] says the name is "Rights Management Services," and goes on to use it's initials all over the place.

    Anyone think they're trying to send a message?

  • openoffice, koffice, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wfmcwalter ( 124904 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:45PM (#5356229) Homepage
    ...which naturally gives them an exc^h^h^hright to permanently break interoperability with OpenOffice, Koffice, etc. It's like Trusted Computing and signed Xbox images - they're not trying to shut out competition, but if that incidentally happens, they're not going to cry about it.

  • Finally, protection for creators. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:46PM (#5356235)
    Now a creator can control his own work, as it should be. As a creator, I have been waiting for such a technology. I can assign which works I want to be for my benefit, and which to give away. I am in control. This will allow me to service those which actually pay me for those works I would desire to sell. Piracy, as we know it, is about to end.

    DRM will allow me to finally see how many people are actually willing to buy my work, and allow me to price accordingly. With piracy eliminated, supply and demand pricing can be truly determined.
    • Troll much? DRM technologies have been available for many years already. Did DAT eliminate audio piracy? Have DVDs eliminated video piracy? Has digital cable eliminated theft of services? Did XP stop OS piracy?

      If there's one silver lining to all this it's that a heavily restrictive DRM technology will likely backfire upon those who use it. If you won't allow anybody to lend/trade/resell your creations, exposure will drop accordingly. Casual sharing is the grease that enables the small creator's works to spread about. Do you think AIM, ICQ, Napster, Kazaa, Linux, Gnome, Winamp, etc. would have achieved such widespread popularity without being freely available? Even Windows would never have gotten to where it is now without massive bootlegging. A lot of people who eventually paid for the ubiquitous Win95 and its successors "extensively previewed" Win 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 for Workgroups for free first.
  • I can't imagine how many people are going to screw around with this feature and lock themselves out of their own word file. Although it may be good for a small percentage of people, how is this going to affect John Q. Trailertrash who likes to fiddle with new functions?

    • Re:Permission of Documents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:52PM (#5356325)
      I can't imagine how many people are going to screw around with this feature and lock themselves out of their own word file

      This is no different than allowing anyone to even simply password protect their files.

      Although it may be good for a small percentage of people, how is this going to affect John Q. Trailertrash who likes to fiddle with new functions?

      That's the point, it's not designed for JQT, it's primarily for corp. users. If little Johnny wants to add DRM to his homework then more power to him, but that is not the audience that M$ has in mind. Now Johnnie's teacher who's creating a test, now that's a different story.

    • Re:Permission of Documents (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bwt ( 68845 )
      Actually, this raises a new possibility for malicious code. Instead of trying to remove copy protection -- someone will write code to quietly ACTIVATE IT.
      • Imagine it locks up your Excel sheet to read-only (w/Palladium backing).

        "What do you mean you can't fix it? I can see my entire workbook here, I'm just not allowed to change it. I can't even copy & paste. What do you mean I'll have to start over? I need those data I see right in front of me, it's not deleted, so fix it!"

        Nothing like a virus that'll not only take your data, but also rub your nose in it. Somebody remember to give this idea to the script kiddies.

        Kjella
  • In a large business, this technology could be invaluable. Some people might need to read a document -- but not necessarily copy or print it, because you can't be 100% sure they won't sell the information to your competition.

    That being said, this is still a technology with a LOT of strings attached. Tread carefully.

  • Okay... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PCM2 ( 4486 )
    And this is bad how, exactly?

    Let me guess: When it's called PGP it's good, when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad?

    • Re:Okay... (Score:3, Informative)

      by 1010011010 ( 53039 )
      when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad

      More or less. They have a knack for making things bad. PGP can work with ANY data. The new Office "upgrade" will only work with the new office upgrade. PGP doesn't mean lock-in. It's generic, open, and there's even competing implementations. Microsoft's solution is, naturally, about lock-in.
    • you see...the word Microsoft is synonymous with evil
      pgp=pretty GOOD privacy....

      enough said...:)

      nbfn

    • PGP vs. DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by David Jao ( 2759 )
      When it's called PGP it's good, when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad?

      You're really missing the entire point if you think PGP is anything like DRM.

      PGP is designed to keep something secret when both the sender and the recipient want to keep it secret.

      DRM is designed to keep something secret when only the sender but not the recipient wants to keep it secret.

      The first is a relatively easy problem with a good solution. The second is a completely impossible problem whose attempted solution will nevertheless cause a lot of grief to society as circumvention tools like digital cameras and copy machines get banned.

  • Microsoft themselves have been burned many times by leaked, and maybe falsified, documents. I have no idea how reliable all this will be without a TCPA, but I can totally understand why they'd want that kind of features.

    Quite frankly, above all the abuse possibilities, I must confess that I can think of a zillion uses for rights management in document in my daily practice that are more fine grained that "can't modify" or "don't print".

    And it's a feature with a double upgrad incentive: upgrade to use the feature and, oh look at that, the document format changed again! I thought they swore that would not happen anymore!

    • Re:If they want to use their own dog food... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:56PM (#5356366)
      I was at MS for a job interview in the not so distant past and a lot of office doors have signs that say "OFFICE XP FREE OFFICE - DOG FOOD SUCKS" with a picture of an 11 with the circle/slash through it. Some people even went so far as to have pictures of the software and a dog taking a dump on it. I asked around and a lot of people were like "yeah, it's pretty divided. Even the Office team isn't too impressed by it."

      Posting AC since I signed that nasty NDA you know.. And - yes, I did get an offer, and yes, I did laugh at them.

  • So.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:46PM (#5356246) Homepage Journal
    So basically what theyre doing is including the ability to make documenst read only, read/write etc. How is this any different than say acrobat documents? I cant weite a pdf file when i open it, at least not with the reader, I cant save it, I can pretty much only look at it. Thats all that MS is doing from the sounds of it
    • > I can pretty much only look at [a PDF document].

      You can even add additional restrictions to PDF docs as well. You can ask Dmitry Sklyarov how well they work.

  • Just so long as they don't add a 'Delete' right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:46PM (#5356249)
    Sorry, Microsoft Outlook has determined that you don't have sufficient privaleges to delete the mail message: "See Hot Young Teens FREE!!!!! JYXX92D"

  • My question (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ACNiel ( 604673 )
    This is pretty neat development, anyway you look at it.

    My question is how many /.'ers will see DRM and Microsoft in the same sentence and immediately start crying foul?

    My notes, my diary, my internal memos, or anything else produced in Office wants to be free. You may want to see the memo that says that 3M knows they are causing giant, man eating three eyed frogs because of the waste they are dumping, but it isn't you right to see it.

    On another note, if this works properly (big if) you will know that the next Halloween document is a fake.

    • Re:My question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TFloore ( 27278 )
      You may want to see the memo that says that 3M knows they are causing giant, man eating three eyed frogs because of the waste they are dumping, but it isn't you right to see it.

      If they are dumping their waste in the stream that flows through my back yard, it's my right to see it.

      On the subject of illegal acts...

      Just curious, how does this software work with subpoenas? Can the Clerk of the Court plug in an override code? How about the plaintiff's attorney? There must be an override of some sort for this, or the courts will have some harsh words on the subject. Not that that had ever bothered Microsoft before.

      (This is, incidentally, a similar issue that I have with most copy-control software, that has no provisions at all for the expiration of copyright.)

  • Heh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:47PM (#5356256) Homepage Journal
    From the Beta 2 text [microsoft.com]:
    Restricted permission for sensitive informationMost corporations today rely on firewalls, log-in security, and other network technologies to protect their sensitive intellectual property. The fundamental limitation of these technologies is that, once legitimate users have access to the information, they can share it with unauthorized people, potentially breaching security policies. IRM helps prevent the sensitive information itself from unauthorized access and reuse.
    Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.
    • Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.

      This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.

      Yes, this will probably be a very effective mechanism for restricting access to documents. And of course, the issue for most open source advocates and users is that this will destroy interoperability. You will not be able to use K/Open/Star/Abi Office to open Microsoft Office documents.
      • This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.

        It is an idiotic method of "security" and will likely be banned by the courts the first time it gets in the way of a subpeana.

        Worse, companies will lose access to their own data, either through bugs, license management issues, lost keys/pass phrases, or a failure to upgrade on Microsoft's schedule.

        Only an imbecelic IT manager would consider effectively turning over the keys ... literally... to his companies documents to a less-than-trustworthy vendor like Microsoft. Indeed, only an imbecelic IT manager would consider handing said power to a completely-trustworthy vendor ... any vendor, no matter how well meaning, isn't going to stay benign with that kind of power in their pocket, and Microsoft in particular has a long and well documented history of abusing exactly this sort of power.

        You need security and encryption? Use PGP and a good passphrase. Too difficult for you? Then get literate already. Burning down the libraries is not a cure for illiteracy, and handing complete power over your commercial data to a software monopolist is not a cure for computer illiteracy. Only education coupled with a willingness to learn is, and I suspect many, many such foolish companies will pay a very heavy price when they go down this particular road.

  • Passport as ID? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhxBlue ( 562201 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:47PM (#5356257) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL).

    <sarcasm> And this will be Kosher, because we all know that Microsoft Passports are fully secure. </sarcasm>

    Seriously, ideaological difference aside: Fix what's broken before you try to build new features on top of it!

  • Here, from the article:
    "IRM is a persistent file-level technology from Microsoft that allows the user to specify permission for who can access and use documents or e-mail messages, and helps prevent sensitive information from being printed, forwarded, or copied by unauthorized individuals. Once permission for a document or message has been restricted with this technology, the access and usage restrictions are enforced no matter where the information is."
    I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but how is this different from traditional filesystem permissions? If I chown something to myself and make it readable to noone but me, won't I be the only person who can then alter those permissions again in the future (except for superusers and such, but I assume windows "administrator" accounts will have the same priveleges)? Just curious.
    • I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but how is this different from traditional filesystem permissions

      1 - This applies to documents and things like email messages.

      2 - AC is preserved even when documents are transferred to another system.

      3 - You can restrict actions such as copying or printing.

      4 - You can create valid lifetimes for the items.

      5 - You can limit # of actions (# of copies, # of times opened, etc)

      In other words, there is a world of difference.
  • I'd like the ability to lock the sales guys from altering Powerpoint presentations. When they want a new slide they can come back, instead of "whipping one up" with the horrible graphics they get off their "20 bazillion clip art images" CDs.

    Seems they don't know how to re-apply templates to new slides either. Fonts all mismatched and screwed up ... the list goes on.

  • spam (Score:3, Funny)

    by DonkeyJimmy ( 599788 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:47PM (#5356270)
    ...allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages...

    Oh good, now I can get spam that I don't have permissons to read.

  • Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigumD ( 219816 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:48PM (#5356274) Homepage
    I can think of a couple of uses already for this technology that would be extremely useful in my office:

    -- Restrict printing of documents that are sensitive

    -- Don't allow company wide e-mail without administrative approval

    and most importantly, don't allow my boss to see that I'm calling him a dick in an e-mail ;)

    Technology like this does have a GOOD purpose as well as negative uses. This could be a really useful office tool.
    • Restrict printing of documents that are sensitive


      If it can be seen or heard, it can be reproduced. Screenshots my friend.. screen shots :) And yes, anyone wanting to make a copy of something, will.

      Don't allow company wide e-mail without administrative approval


      That's your mail handler's job. Most mail handlers support this as it is.


      and most importantly, don't allow my boss to see that I'm calling him a dick in an e-mail ;)


      Idiotically enough, we have outgoing filters on our mail preventing words like shit, but not sh-it or shitake. :)

  • Bucking the trend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:48PM (#5356279)
    I know that there'll be plenty of snide negative comments about this, but I figured, what the hell.

    I think that generally this is a good thing. Every company I've worked at has created copious piles of "internal only" type documents (electronicly that is). Making sure that these documents either stay internal, or don't go beyond those people externally that you give them to is always a hassle and pretty much impossible to do currently. Right now you have to depend on the "good faith" of your employees or those you've forwarded documents to and have agreements with (e.g. non-disclosures). Having a solution that makes controlling this information a bit easier could be useful.

    Now before people start getting all in a tizzy, I'm not saying that Microsofts implementation will be any good or that it won't have problems and cause more trouble than it's worth. I'm just saying that the concept is worthwhile and shouldn't just be dismissed because it's being foisted by the "Evil Empire" or you can think of a dozen ways around it.

  • So much for XML or standardization (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DigitalSorceress ( 156609 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:48PM (#5356280)
    I was sort fo hoping against hope that MS would be moving further toward XML and therefore allowing greater standardization (I know it's a pipe dream, but one's gotta have hope)

    In order for Redmond to add rights management, it kind of implies that they will have to lock down their documents. After all, what good would it do to make a Word document only readable by some certain person or group only to have anyone with a text editor or even a web browser be able to open it?

    So, they will have to encrypt everything - and each time you go to open an Excel spreadsheet or WOrd doc, the program will have to "phone home" to Microsoft with your PASSPORT account?

    *sigh*

    • I was sort fo hoping against hope that MS would be moving further toward XML and therefore allowing greater standardization.

      It's surprising how many people make dumb comments like this on Slashdot. Please go learn about XML then get back with us.

      Briefly, XML is a format for data formats. Creating a document in an XML format doesn't mean it'll be readable by anybody else. It's the rough equivalent of saying "I wish Microsoft would start using 8-bit bytes in their data files..."

  • When DRM == Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnetwerker ( 526997 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:56PM (#5356370) Journal

    It will be interesting to see how /.ers (and sophisticated-but-trigger-happy users in general) deal with a convergence of the hated DRM with the much-beloved crypto-privacy.

    If explained as "future versions of an office productivity suite will contain easy-to-use capabilities to ensure the privacy and secrecy of the user's documents, allowing them to be exchanged only with select others and safe from prying eye", we would all shout Hallelujah!

    However, if it's "the ugly black hand of Digital Rights Management has now extended from our televisions and stereos to our very own documents", we shout "boo-hiss"!

    I mean, really. Information wants to be free, as long as it's not the business plan for my new multi-zillion-dollar startup that wants to be free. Or is it that Information wants to be free unless it is John Ashcroft that's doing the looking?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm as suspicious of Microsoft and of DRM as the next guy, but does everyone think "DRM" (or whatever we call it)is as bad when it's *your* (private) information as when it's a plausibly mass-distributed movie or song?

    gnetwerker

    • Re:When DRM == Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )
      There is a world of difference between encryption and DRM. Encryption relies on two parties both of who are interested in keeping a secret. DRM attempts to make a party that is NOT interested in keeping a secret to do so. This violates the laws of physics and causality and is in the end impossible. Attempting to make the impossible possible will just make things incredibly inconvienent. The fact that it also makes competition with Microsoft impossible also makes everybody really pretty upset.

  • So yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:57PM (#5356399) Homepage
    Openoffice.org... Open office is really nice. I just started using it a few months ago when one night I finally got fed-up with Word's autoformatting (fuck you, it can't be turned off and that's the truth) so I finally said "screw it, the open source office alternatives can't be this bad". I downloaded Open Office (like 5 mins on my cable modem) and installed it (like 2 minutes) and I had something that worked at least as well as and in my opinion, better than MS Office. I've been telling my friends about it ever since and a lot of them are sold on it too.

    • Re:So yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 )
      > Open office is really nice ... and in my opinion, better than MS Office.

      I just tried it out this week, after trying (unsucessfully) to get Excel to replace '*' in a spreadsheet. I like what I see so far in OpenOffice.org Calc ! It has a *very* nice find/replace dialog - it even supports regular expressions.

      What I don't like:
      - Memory usage seems worse then Excel
      - Doesn't support the macros in my Excel sheets :(
      - The 'thumbtab' in the bottom right is too small, and not the standard Windows one.
      - The UI and hotkeys are not close enough to the Excel layout. (PageUp PageDown doesn't work in Print Preview, etc)

      Regardless, it *has* piqued my curiousity for me wanting to take a look at the source, and maybe even see what's involved in contributing.

      It is possible to support a 'community wish list' ? I'd pay a few dollars to have some features added!

      Bringing this back on topic ... any Plans for DRM in OpenOffice ? I can see it's usefullness by password protecting, and only allowing viewing. Pretty much what PDFs already support, but at least we would have a "free" editor.

  • The choice becomes even more clear. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rdewald ( 229443 ) <rdewald&gmail,com> on Friday February 21, 2003 @05:57PM (#5356402) Homepage Journal
    Msoft seems at first glance here to be addressing a need in my industry, health care, to tightly audit and control access to documents. The problem is the preservation of health information privacy while providing free and ready access for authorized users. Network user authentication only goes so far because the same user might need different privileges for the same document at different times, depending on the purpose of the disclosure at the time.

    We have a principle in health information security called "minimum necessary" which dictates that information only be disclosed for a particular purpose and only the information needed to accomplish said purpose be disclosed at the transaction level. Meaning, if you come back and have something else to do with the same document, you might need a different level of access. It is a sticky wicket.

  • Next gas: 50 miles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:06PM (#5356500) Homepage Journal
    This is a warning to all of you who have Important Data inside a Microsoft file format: This is your last chance to get the information out of a proprietary format and into a format you can control.

    Once this hits the market, anyone trying to sell software which can bypass the access control mechanisms of Word to read copyrighted information (it's all copyrighted) from within a protected document will be strung-up as a DMCA criminal.

    This feature will not be offered as a part of Open Office.

    It's kinda like those "Last gas for 50 miles" signs you see outside the overpriced gas station in the middle of the desert. Here's your chance. Miss it, and there's no turning back.

  • The Implications of this are Huge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teckla ( 630646 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:15PM (#5356593)

    Think about it:

    * It makes the chances of writing an office suite that is compatible with MS Office 2003 almost impossible. I bet the DMCA will make it illegal to reverse engineer the crypto you'll find this new IRM technology uses.

    * It boosts Windows Server sales, since this technology will require Windows Server. UNIX-based file servers need not apply; they aren't IRM-enabled (and not allowed to be, thanks to the DCMA).

    * It'll force users to upgrade Office. Yes, Office 97 already does way more than you need already. Too bad. You'll need to keep your version compatible with all the IRM-laden .doc, .xls, .pps, etc. files that'll be flying around.

    * The PHB's of the world will eat this technology up without realizing the consequences.

    Microsoft is brilliant. Fucking brilliant. I thought they were starting to lose it, but they're not. They've found new and amazing ways to leverage their monopoly; except, this time, it's not their OS monopoly. It's their office suite monopoly. My hat is off to you, Microsoft.

    Corrections welcome.

    -Teckla

    • I bet the DMCA will make it illegal to reverse engineer the crypto you'll find this new IRM technology uses.
      How so?

      Consider: Who holds the copyright to these documents? Everyone. This is nothing like the situation with CSS-protected DVDs, where the only party who held the copyright was claiming that permission was not granted. If you write a document in MS Word, it is yours, and you are the one person in the whole world, who under DMCA, grants permission to people to access that document. Grant it, and the tools are legal.

      DMCA only has teeth in reference to DRM, in cases where the scrambled content is created by a monopoly or cartel. If there's no monopoly on content, then DMCA is meaningless. DMCA was bought by monopolists and is only useful for monopolists.

      "We, the MPAA, in order to form a more perfect union..."

    • It makes the chances of writing an office suite that is compatible with MS Office 2003 almost impossible. I bet the DMCA will make it illegal to reverse engineer the crypto you'll find this new IRM technology uses.

      Actually, the DMCA [eff.org] has explicit provisions to allow defeating copyright protection if it is for the purpose of reverse engineering. It's one of the only exceptions there is.

  • Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kr3m3Puff ( 413047 ) <meNO@SPAMkitsonkelly.com> on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:17PM (#5356608) Homepage Journal
    I would welcome some version of DRM for the individual. I work for a consulting company and I have had cases where other consulting companies have taken documents that I put my blood sweat and tears into, changed a title page and then went an took work away from me, let alone co-workers who have done the same.

    We have often resorted to creating everything in Acrobat, which is somewhat limited, but I really would like more control. It would be great to give my team complete write access, but not worry about who I ship the document to.

    It is upto me then to come to agreement with my clients about how much access they have to the documentation I produce.
    • If you let them read the document, there is always the possibility of them copying it. If you want them to be able to read the document but not manipulate its contents, save it as a damn jpg or something. Or print it out and send it to them in the mail. DRM is not going to help you here, you're better off trying to work with people you actually trust. Also, if you wrote a doc and someone changed a title page and is making money from that document, you are protected by copyright law. Call a lawyer.

  • Will confuse 95% of the users (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:17PM (#5356614)
    NO ONE likes to lock a "softcopy" file down so that you can't suck data from it. If i want a document that i can't cut/paste data from, i print the fscking thing. The ONLY thing most people want 99% of the itme is to prevent someone from making changes to a document (such as a resume). In that case, we make PDFs... because few know how to modify them.

    The esoteric nature of this scheme - much like some of the advanced features of Outlook/Exchange will be mostly if not totally lost on all but a few ubergeeks in your typical business ... Those geeks will send out emails/Word docs which are IRM'd, and then will just frustrate the hell out of the normal users who will email back asking for a "non-fscked up" version.

    Its kinda like being the first guy to install a Service Pack from Microsoft the first day it comes out... you only do that once and have a horrible experience before you relize you better wait, only this will be much more powerful....

    the first time Joe Businessman brings a file with him on the reoad that he can't modify or can't copy data from - he'll swear to Jesus and never EVER use this "feature" again.

    In short - there are two kinds of people - people who will "get" this, and those that won't. Those that get it are either PHB's or geeks - most geeks won't want to use it or will use it to piss off the other kind of people - the normal people that won't understand how this helps them do their work.

    for most people - security is a PITA - this will only make their lives more difficult, and will have them finding work arounds if it is "mandated".

  • And what about spam? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tktk ( 540564 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:18PM (#5356623)
    What about when you get spam in the future? In the new Outlook would those spammers be able to restrict your permissions on their email and make it undeletable?

    Everyone would love being a repository for spam. Oh wait, we already are.

  • Compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:27PM (#5356703)
    I've been thinking of this for awhile now. I've come to the conclusion that this is (at least partly) a method to prevent the inter-operation of competing OSs. Microsoft realizes that their proprietory document format isn't going to keep vendors from interoperating, not in the long run. Open Office has already made significant strides in reading Office format documents. Breaking compatibility in the format requires breaking compatibility in their Office products as well, which isn't a suitable option. Thus, embedding DRM in the format is the ideal method. Think about these points:

    1) DRM can turn any open format, like PDF or XML, instantly into a closed format. If a competing product can't use the DRM technology, it can't read the document, even if it could do it theoretically.

    2) Embedding DRM into the document format itself makes little sense, other than for the above reason. Why not just integrate proven and time-tested encryption algorithms into Office suites? If a user wants to secure a document, they can click the "secure" button, and the office suite could encrypt the document using something like PGP. That should provide enough security for most businesses, and for those that it doesn't, well they have their own security methods anyway.

    3) In light of the first two reasons, it's quite clear that DRM in the document format can easily be used to turn open content into Windows content. This is especially true if the format defaults to something like "DRM on, no protection" in which the DRM mechanism would be enabled, but no access checks would be performed. To the clueless user, this would seem like the standard mechanism we have today, but these documents would not be viewable on platforms that do not have the DRM mechanism.

    4) To tie it all together, the DMCA provides Microsoft with a degree of legal protection. While it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer Microsoft's document formats, it probably would not be legal to break the encryption, even if it was with the purpose of gaining interoperability.

    Of course, this could be an entirely benign move on Microsoft's part. But in this day and age, and with Microsoft's track record, are you really willing to take the chance?

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gcondon ( 45047 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:27PM (#5356712)
    I wonder why Microsoft is so interested in controlling access to archived emails?

    I wonder if they have had any bad experiences with this in the past?

    Just a hunch ...

  • Let me guess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skintigh2 ( 456496 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:30PM (#5356739)
    Software that doesn't support DRM will not be able to view these documents, and making software such as open office compatible will be a DMCA violation.

    It's all falling into place quite well. It's amazing what kind of ROI you can get on Senators.

  • How to Screw Your Little Worker Drones With DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday February 21, 2003 @06:41PM (#5356836) Homepage
    I don't remember where I read this scenerio, I'm too lazy to look it up. I'm almost postitive that /. linked to it though. It is a simple reason why DRM is NOT good on things like documents and e-mail. Here is the idea (paraphrased):

    As a worker, your boss sends you an email asking you to destroy important documents and do other immoral, illegal, and fattening things; threating to fire you if you don't. You read the e-mail and then it automatically deletes it's self. You can't print it either because the DRM says so. So now what happens to you?

    1. You do what the e-mail says and get caught. You try to say your boss told you to do it, but because the e-mail erased it's self, and you couldn't print it out. So basically you're cought red-handed, and there is nothing but hearsay to prove that you're boss made you do it. You go down for what happened, your boss is OK.
    2. You do what the e-mail says and get away with it, but it helps the company. Your boss can say that he made you do it, or just that he did it because there is no proof of who did it; and get all the credit. You get no credit, no raise, nothing; because you can't do anything but say "I did it! It was me! Give me a raise!"
    3. You refuse to do what the e-mail says, and get fired. But since you don't have the e-mail or a printout, you can't prove that you were ordered to do whatever it said. Your boss comes up with some other reason to justify the firing, and you can't prove that he's doing it because you said no to the illegal things. You're screwed again, and your reputation is tarnished. You'll probably have a hard time getting a new job. Nothing happens to your boss.
    4. You don't do what the e-mail says and try to be a whistleblower. You'd be safe under whistleblower laws, but you have no proof because the e-mail is gone. The company sues you for wasting their time and "inventing stories" to damage them. You're looking at jail time, or fines, or whatever; and you're going to get fired. Nothing happens to your boss, except he looks sympathetic.
    5. You don't do what the e-mail says and the company gets ruined. Lots of things happen, everyone loses their job. When it comes time to tell the stockholders why, your boss produces the e-mail and says that you could have saved the company, but you didn't. Now you have tons of rich and powerfull people hating you, no job, and are in deep trouble.

    I can't wait.

  • Microsoft ahead of the curve again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @07:46PM (#5357353)
    Once again MS has shown they are ahead of the curve when it comes to introducing new features. This is a great feature. For instance, now I can distribute documents under NDA to customers and partners without worrying about them casually distributing the info to whomever they feel like. Of course there are ways to get by the security if someone really wants to. But it stops unintentional distribution of sensitive material into the wrong hands. In a few year OSS will realize this is a good h]feature and put it in Open Office. People will still be saying that Microsoft is not innovative then too, I'm sure.

  • A Rock and a Hard Place (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Friday February 21, 2003 @07:53PM (#5357404) Homepage
    Follow me on a paranoid journey to the future. I have a feeling that the main goal of Microsoft's involvement in rights management is merely a business tactic to make it harder to use non-Microsoft software. So far the government still allows you to write software that reads a Word document. But to read a rights-managed Word document it seems like you will either have to break the rights management (DMCA violation) or emulate whatever Microsoft does to respect the rights management (software patent infringement). I'm not sure which one is the rock and which one is the hard place, but I'm feeling squeezed already.

  • USATODAY makes a good point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday February 21, 2003 @09:55PM (#5358074)
    Here's an article [usatoday.com] on this. The article title gets the point across pretty clearly: "New technology could cut down on whistleblowing". Think Enron, WorldCom, cigarette companies, etc... .

    It seems that this technology would be pretty valuable for terrorists, no? This is a child pornographer's dream. You want to run a second set of books so you can pay less taxes, use the new MS Office. How exactly will law enforcement do legitimate searches? A lot of the arguments made against strong crypto by the government would seem better aimed at DRM.

    Keep in mind that mobsters have been jailed even though they used strong crypto because the government tapped their keyboards (after obtaining legitimate warrents to do so) and sniffed their keys. Do we REALLY want to allow a system where the machine prevents us from gathering such evidence? How would you like to receive a death threat from a mobster via email and be unable to prove it to the police?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close