Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!husc6!m2c!wpi!tbutler
From: tbutler@wpi.wpi.edu (Tim Butler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: On Location is BAD NEWS!
Message-ID: <8514@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 90 16:50:01 GMT
References: <17721.635313273@ics.uci.edu>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass.
Lines: 29
In-reply-to: truesdel@ICS.UCI.EDU's message of 18 Feb 90 03:56:42 GMT

In article <17721.635313273@ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ICS.UCI.EDU (Scott Truesdell) writes:

   Mitch Kapor's new venture sounded like a neat hack.
>   Then I read something in MacWorld, March, 1990, MacWorld News, page
>   119, right under Mitch's picture that chilled my blood. I quote:
>
>	   "AppleShare volumes also present a curious problem:
>	   [On Location] indexes don't respect AppleShare's
>	   security features, so you can't prevent users from
>	   finding text in folders they are not authorized to
>	   read. On Technology plans a fix for a later version."

 [remainder deleted]

Isn't it interesting that an application must RESPECT Appleshare's security
features? I think perhaps that instead of On Technology planning a fix, Apple
should be planning a fix. If On Location drops this *feature* then many
people may forget about it and therefore place themselves in a vulnerable
position. Anyone who then had the older version would still be able to  
access protected volumes.

gee, those car theives didn't respect my 'don't steal my car' signs!

		-tim

Tim Butler		(tbutler@wpi.wpi.edu)
Teaching Assistant	HL 103b  ext.5424
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Worcester Polytechnic Institute