Posted on 10/05/2005 7:42:38 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Opinion: It's not coincidence that after Massachusetts made it clear that it would support open formats, Microsoft is now going to include PDF in the next version of Office.
What is Microsoft up to, anyway, with its sudden plan to finally support PDF?
It wasn't announced by Bill Gates loudly to the world at the Professional Developer Conference a few weeks ago. It also wasn't proclaimed to the Microsoft faithful at its recent Most Valuable Professional Global Summit.
No, instead, Microsoft quietly squeaked out the news on a Saturday afternoon in Microsoft Office Program Manager Brian Jones' Weblog.
Could it be that it's because Microsoft is backing its way into ever so reluctantly supporting an open format after Massachusetts decided that it would only use office suites that supported open formats like PDF and OpenDocument?
It certainly looks that way to me.
For all of its talk about being an innovator, Microsoft is really just a follower.
PointerClick here to read more about Microsoft's decision to build PDF support into Office 12.
Sometimes, of course, the company is a very, very reluctant follower. It took Microsoft's leadership forever to live down the fact that they had initially dismissed the Internet. Now, I see Microsoft slowly and painfully embracing open standards.
Mind you, this move is just a beginning. I recently pointed out that it would be trivial for Microsoft to add OpenDocument support to Office.
I don't see that happening anytime soon now though.
With PDF support alone, Microsoft can still try for Massachusetts government contracts without having to add OpenDocument.
Well, until StarOffice, OpenOffice.org and WordPerfect's support for OpenDocument force Microsoft's hand anyway.
After all, PDF is much more of an end-result format than one that most people actually want to edit in. As OpenDocument and the applications that enable it gain more support, Microsoft will find itself forced into supporting it too.
Now, some might say that this is just Microsoft giving the people what they want. Many users have been asking for a PDF option from Microsoft since Adobe Acrobat 4 appeared in 1999.
eWEEK Special Report: Office Politics
But, if that's all there was to it, then why was Microsoft banging the drum for its own PDF substitute, Metro, only a few months ago?
Still others might say that is part and parcel of Microsoft's recent efforts to compete against Adobe in other ways: Sparkle vs. Flash, Acrylic vs. Photoshop and so on.
To which, I say, "Why now? Why announce it in such a subdued way?"
No, all those other things play a role, but at the end of the day, Microsoft felt that it must make at least a concession to open standards by adopting PDF.
After all, it's not like Massachusetts is the only entity that is seriously considering making supporting open standards a requirement for its software purchases. Massachusetts was just the first to make it official.
Microsoft would love it if it could make everyone stick to its proprietary formats. That forces customers to keep buying its products. But it can't. And, much as Microsoft may hate it, its executives know it. So it is that as quietly as the company could, Microsoft is, once more, making concessions to open standards.
eWEEK.com Senior Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been using and writing about operating systems since the late '80s and thinks he may just have learned something about them along the way. He can be reached at sjvn@ziffdavis.com.
Even if that's the case, I'm sure there will be some freeware utility or plug-in that will take office 12's transparent and free docs and export them to ODF. So once again the consumers in the state are free to choose. Yeah! You know you might be able to make some money if you wrote the code for such a utility or plug-in. Oh wait, I said freeware and you'd probably want to license it under GPL...so never mind. But you ccould make money teaching people how to use it--LOL!
I agree; however, giving them the algorithm only makes it easier. You're trying to go back to a different point. The point that was originally made was that obscurity is key tenant to security. A hash is obscuring a passphrase...pure and simple. Without obscurity you'd have zero security--to say otherwise is ignorant.
The federal government also has EAL standards. Should they have paid Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, etc., to meet those standards?
Any organization sets its standards. Vendors are free to meet those standards or not, depending on whether they want the contract.
If they bought their product they paid for it. Duh.
Do you think lockheed martin sells F-16 for free? Or do you think they make up their own standards and the gov't just accepts them?
But then it wouldn't be Office supporting ODF, would it? Some kludgy third-party converter is not going to work as well as a Microsoft native implementation of ODF.
As for consumer choice, your point is positively Orwellian. The MA program is about giving the people of MA choice. If Microsoft doesn't want to exclude itself, all it needs to do is implement ODF.
!!!
Do tell.
Office 12's default format is transparent (XML) is available for anyone to license ROYALT FREE. That's why I was saying the PDF waiver is bogus. Office 12 offers basically the same type of license to use the format as PDF does. This was nothing but an ABM move.
Hey if you don't like M$ that's fine, they should just admit we did this to get off of M$. But be honest about it, don't hide behind non-sensical standards and waivers for companies you like.
WTH? I thought OSS advocates claim they can do just about anything better than Microsoft. Why wouldn't OSS be able to offer a reliable product? It's not like I'm saying convert a document format that no one truly knows other than Microsoft. I'm talking about converting their transparent Office 12 standard. Or how about writing a plug-in that saves directly to ODF format. If OSS would be good enough to cover the entire office suite, surely they could cover this one itty bitty piece of code.
Is it? Or is it an XML wrapper of a proprietary binary format?
Your text: "The whole point of a hash is to make it hard to get back to the original phrase."
I laughed out loud when I read that. "Hard" implies possible. It is absolutely impossible to get the original phrase back. It is one-way. The only thing you can do is guess the original phrase or find a collision with another.
To obscure means that the original is there, but hard to read. Hashes do not keep the original. They keep a digest of the original (which is why they are also called "digest" algorithms).
You say obscurity has no role in security and I say it does.
It has a small role that's not really damaging in itself, my point always being that you should never rely on it for security. The trouble comes when people do rely on it.
Obscurity will only give you a short break before your actual code or algorithm is under attack. There's no reason not to do it for yourself, but there's really no reason to do it either. For code you distribute, especially encryption, many people won't trust your code or algorithm if you use obscurity. A lot of people use OSS not because of ideology or money or business reasons, but because they're paranoid -- they don't trust anyone. And that's a good thing when you're talking security. A computer security guy who isn't paranoid is worthless.
Ever heard of a disassembler? A hex dump? No application developer should ever rely on the obscurity of an algorithm for security because the obscurity WILL be broken, and all you're left with is the security of your algorithm. If you keep your code secret, a mistake or disgruntles employee will eventually leak it. So why did you take the time and trouble to do the obscurity in the first place? Beats me, should have spent that time on the actual security.
Absolutely false. Massachusetts isn't excluding Microsoft, Microsoft is excluding itself. All Microsoft needs to do is implement ODF.
And all this at tax payers expense. Plus as I mentioned they aren't excluded...they can piggy-back on the PDF waiver. Also one can write their own converter or plug-in. And all this at the taxpayers expense. The state could give the same waiver to Office 12's transparent and royalty free license as they did PDF and save the taxpayers the expense of creating an ODF plug-in.
But they didn't. Microsoft has fourteen months to do what they can probably do in fourteen days: implement ODF.
Doubly true for Microsoft. They refuse to implement ODF, and thus exclude themselves.
Taxpayer expense? LOL
If MA moves away from an expensive vendor who won't support the standard, and toward a free vendor who will, the only loser is Microsoft, for refusing to include themselves by implementing ODF.
Well I was going to go into detail on this; however, I figured most were intelligent enough to understand. A hash by itself doesn't make it impossible. For example, Here's a hash I just created. Let's say your password is AbCd. Well here's the hash: DcBa. Now let me give you a hash and see if you can work it backwards: wXyZ.
Go ahead give it your best guess. If you can't do it...that really explains a lot. However, assuming you can figure out this simple hash, then you just managed to crack my hash. See it wasn't hard enough, but it's still a hash of sorts (although very very weak).
So now what was that point of it being impossible?
The only expense involved with Microsoft implementing ODF is Microsoft's week (or less) of coding time....a Microsoft expense.
You have to operate on the assumption that they have the algorithm, because they will soon.
Go ahead. Make a new hash algorithm for passwords and stick it in Windows or Linux. Distribute it as your new über-secure password system. Rely on the obscurity of your hash code for security. I'll get it and run a process monitor on my system, do a memory dump or look at the hash code on the hard drive and disassemble it. It'll be little time before I know what your hash algorithm is. Better hope you made it really secure. Maybe having it open and getting peer review from cryptologists around the world would have shown you whether it's really secure.
So, again, why did you even spend the time on obscurity when it didn't help? Obscurity will only stop people who wouldn't have enough talent to break the actual security anyway.
A hash is obscuring a passphrase
A hash digests a passphrase. Completely different.
Actually there's plenty of reason for it. Ever hear of operational security?
However, I do agree with most of what's in your post, but that's not what was at the heart of the discussion as there's plenty of agreement in that. I believe you guys are trying to save face by slowly changing your point into a more rational point of view.
The DU could use some more like minded thinkers. Do you also believe a tax increase on corporations doesn't impact consumers? If not, why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.