poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Zalewski <zalew...@optonline.net>
Subject RE: This should be fun
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2003 05:55:12 GMT
More rambling that no one asked for and is probably all not correct
anyway...

First, it's not even clear that this changes the format of a document at
all. One possibility is to build this in to an extension of the NTFS file
system. If this is so, the document would be protected only if it resides on
a Windows 2003 server. That's the way I read the article - it won't be
backwards compatible, and users will need both Windows 2003 and Office 2003
to use the feature. If implemented at the file system level, this would
allow the IRM to protect all kinds of files, such as audio, video, bitmaps,
non-Microsoft documents, etc. Without knowing any better, I strongly suspect
that the feature will be implemented at the file system level.

As I understand it, we would be prevented from deciphering an encoded
document which was not addressed to POI. In other words, we would be
prevented from deciphering a document to which the user running POI does not
have access rights. If POI is running on a non-windows environment, this may
mean that POI will have to authenticate with a Windows 2003 server in order
to read an enciphered document.

But we would not be prevented from a) recognizing that the document is not
available to us (i.e., the user running the java process which uses POI), b)
deciphering an encoded document which was meant to be accessible by POI or
c) creating a document which uses IRM to restrict the viewers of the
document.

It's really hard to speculate until Microsoft releases the specs and APIs
for dealing with the new service. But it's still fun to guess, even if for
no other reason than to have a good laugh at yourself when you review what
you wrote (for all the world to see).

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Stampoultzis [mailto:gstamp@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 12:47 AM
To: POI Developers List
Subject: RE: This should be fun


We will actually be prevented from implementing this new format because to
do so would probably be a DMCA violation.  Nice huh?

-- Glen

At 02:04 PM 3/09/2003, you wrote:
>Here's my thoughts (nobody asked for them, but I give them anyway) ...
>
>I read this article also. And I wonder how it will affect the internal
>structure of Word and Excel. In particular, will this feature break such
>APIs as POI?
>
>For those who haven't read the article, Windows 2003 has a new service
>called 'Windows Rights Management Service'. It will be integrated into
>Office 2003, through a set of tools called IRM (Information Rights
>Management). It will allow the author of a document to specify which users
>or user groups are allowed to read, write, print, etc.
>
>The implication is that if a document is protected in this fashion, it is
>possible that POI would not be able to read or process the document. With
>respect to this, I have to agree with Glen below - most users will not use
>the feature. The use of the feature requires that all workstations and
>servers be upgraded to Windows 2003 (and Office 2003). And even if users do
>need the feature, they will probably not use it for files which must be
>processed by POI.
>
>An opportunity also exists - if POI could be used to create an .xls or .doc
>which would be protected by Information Rights Management. There is a Java
>API which understands Windows Authentication at http://jcifs.samba.org
which
>may help.
>
>But we need to see the implementation before we can begin to understand how
>it works.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Glen Stampoultzis [mailto:gstamp@iinet.net.au]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 PM
>To: POI Developers List
>Subject: Re: This should be fun
>
>
>I doubt it's going to be the killer feature that Microsoft is hoping
>for.  It's not enabled by default so I suspect most people won't bother to
>use it.
>
>-- Glen
>
>At 12:15 PM 3/09/2003, you wrote:
> >http://rss.com.com/2100-1012_3-5069246.html
> >--
> >Andrew C. Oliver
> >http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
> >Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
> >
> >http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
> >For Java and Excel, Got POI?
> >
> >The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
> >definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
> >general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree
with
> >everything espoused in the above email.
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>Glen Stampoultzis
>gstamp@iinet.net.au
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message