Metadata in Vista Could Be Too Helpful

linumax writes "Windows Vista will improve search functionality on a PC by letting users tag files with metadata, but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned. Search and organization capabilities are among the primary features of Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP due out late in 2006. While building those features, Microsoft is not paying enough attention to managing the descriptive information, or metadata, that users can add to files to make it easier to find and organize data on a PC, according to Gartner. 'This opens up the possibility of the inadvertent disclosure of this metadata to other users inside and outside of your organization,' Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald wrote in a research note published on Thursday."

Oblig. Nelson

[gardyloo (512791)]

Windows Vista will improve search functionality on a PC by letting users tag files with metadata, but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned.

        Ha-ha! You're using Windows!

Non-Oblig. Homer

[truthsearch (249536)]

Homer: From now on, there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Windows Vista way.
Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!

Not just windows, Mac's too

[goombah99 (560566)]

The mac OS (offering previews of the next Windows OS since 1984) already suffers from this problem and so far there are no graceful solutions. Namely spotlight gathers sensitive info in ways I wish it would not. To be specific, I deal with a lot of confidential e-mail that can include personell problems of empoyees. At the same time it's got all my project info on it. When an employee comes to talk about a project I will often search for terms related to the project or sometimes by the employeees name in spotlight while they sit around my screen. Spotlight pulls up the docs and the e-mails onto the same search results screen. Seeing titles of certain e-mails or possibly just the addresses can reveal confidential information or be embarassing.

As a result I no longer have spotlight index my e-mails. And of course that's a pain in the ass since it means Mail.app's searhc feature is busted. While I can figure out how to work around that (e.g. don't use mail.app, which would be a pity), the story does not end there. Unfortunately, spotlight indexes my backup volumes too, and it can blunder across old mail there and index it.

Now you might think I could also turn off indexing the backup volumes but there's the rub. First I might not want to. Second, you can't always do it. Spotlight has some bugs in how it handles logical partitions on disks and in particular it sometimes ignores being told not to index a volume if another partitions is being indexed.

Anyhow eventually there will be more fine grained control on privacy, but then the interface will become more cludgy too. In fact that may just kill the whole fine grained control effort since most folks don't worry about this sort of things and would prefer simplicity.

It's perhaps worth noting that windows dropped making the filesystem a database (for now). That might be a smart move since making at a wrapper like spotlight means they are less locked into a single search design. Problems like this will emerge slowly and flexibility to plug problems will be needed.

other Automatic meta data generation issues

[goombah99 (560566)]

Another problem with meta data is the generation of meta data. If people generated their own data they could control what goes into it. But the problem here is that you just don't do it normally. Plus as documents change, get copied and modified and so on it gets out of sync unless you keep modifying it. Last thing most people would want is some rigourous change control protocol for every document and e-mail.

Which of course means automated meta-data scraping. this leads to the problem of confidential info disclosure. that's obvious. But it also leads to another problem that annoying. When do you update the meta data? when the file is created or modified? a small lag? or in batch overnight?

On macs you can force a batch overnight search. But the default on is for instant updates. If you add a search term to a document WHILE a search is being performed in another window it will find it! amazing. and very useful too. And it assures things like computers that sleep at night and detachable drives stay indexed.

But it's also amazingly annoying when you stop doing conventional desktop activities and start doing more unix like things. Tage for example untarring a 30 GB archive with twenty thousand small files in it or something that is generating transisent files in a rapid fire fashion. Well you start untarring and for the first few files it zips along. then suddenly throughput nose dives. Why? you look at your processes and you see MDL the indexing programming is chewing up your disk access.

You can work around this if you can control the file names and make sure they are ones it will not index. But that's not assured, always possible, and will vary from computer to computer.

So anyhow there's lots of fine tuning needed on these ubiquitous metadata systems. Fine grained privacy control and fine grained operation modes so it's live in desktop application mode and lags in unix/high performance modes.

Re:Not just windows, Mac's too

[Angostura (703910)]

When an employee comes to talk about a project I will often search for terms related to the project or sometimes by the employeees name in spotlight while they sit around my screen.

It doesn't sound like a metadata related problem to me. It sounds more like a furniture placement issue.

But seriously, de-selecting 'Mail' in the Spotlight pref pane, should stop spotlight from displaying results in its window, while retaining the full indexing facilities within Mail.app itself.

Re:Not just windows, Mac's too

[truthsearch (249536)]

By having someone look at your screen it's your responsibility to prevent private info from appearing. The system knows you're logged in, but it certainly doesn't know someone other than you is looking at the information. Just like if you brought up your address book... you should know not to bring up confidential contact information. The system certainly can't take care of that for you.

Re:Oblig. Nelson

[Koohoolinn (721622)]

Ha-Ha! Your metadata is showing!

Easy solution

[crazdgamer (846581)]

If my metadata could be viewed by other people inside and outside my organization, there's an easy solution to this.

Don't fill out the metadata fields!

Re:Easy solution

[shokk (187512)]

Or how about... watch how you tag things!! If you go tagging files "my secret romp with Goatse dude" AND you might be embarrassed about it, then _don't tag it_. However, if you're one to shout that kind of crap out to the world, tag away. I think the old adage still applies: "don't do anything you wouldn't want everyone to see in the news."

It has everything to do with human behavior and nothing to do with computer security. As it is, desktop search tools are opening up whole avenues to quickly find the secret smut on your desktop. Do you have a Google account AND search history enabled? Go to google.com and do a Search History and see what stuff you've been searching on that Google knows about. You shouldn't have done a search on "merkin".

I don't get it..

[dangerz (540904)]

Isn't this like saying Airbags are too safe? I thought whole point of metadata is to make it easier to search and find data? How can it be *too* helpful?

Re:I don't get it..

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

> Isn't this like saying Airbags are too safe?

Like Big Bird says, remember to put your infants in the back seat, so the "safety" devices don't kill them.

Re:I don't get it..

[mzwaterski (802371)]

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm pretty sure he was making an argument by analogy. It seemed pretty clear to me. Airbargs are a good thing. They save a lot of lives, but if used improperly (e.g., placing a child's car seat right in front of the airbag) they can be a bad thing (read: deadly).

Turning to the metadata: Having lots of metadata to search can be a very good thing. But, if used improperly (e.g., having the index not properly secured from outside access or malicious software) they can be a bad thing (read: security risk).

So, as the grandparent said: "Like Big Bird says, remember to put your infants in the back seat, so the "safety" devices don't kill them."

Re:I don't get it..

[Roofus (15591)]

I would *hope* ( and no, I didn't read the article ), that the meta data for each file would have the same security permissions as the original file.

Otherwise, you'd be able to search for the meta data in the private files of other users.

Re:I don't get it..

[1u3hr (530656)]

I would *hope* ( and no, I didn't read the article ), that the meta data for each file would have the same security permissions as the original file.

I did RTFA. The "problem" is you may deliberately send a file, eg a spreadsheet, but along with the file, Windows will have your indexing info, which may give away more than you want ("generic fuck off message", etc). Of course, this information comes courtesy of a company that has a "metadata cleaning" system they want to sell you. Everyone seems to be think

The problem is giving away metadata with the files

[RetiredMidn (441788)]

The problem lies in intentionally sharing files that include metadata you don't typically look at, and therefore may be unaware that you're sharing along with the visible content of the file.

For example, several years ago Microsoft reportedly [computerbytesman.com] posted its annual report as a Word document, which contained evidence that it was composed on a Macintosh.

That example is good for a chuckle (OK, maybe a belly laugh for us Mac fanboys), but suppose someone sent a document to a customer that showed it was filed in a folder named "Correspondence with Idiot Customers" without the sender realizing it...

Oh Great

[by Anonymous Coward]

Now we have a business analyst group trying to direct a computer software company how to write its software. When Gartner starts making new technology or being otherwise reasonably involved in technology, they can have a seat at the table. For now, this is just horrendously bad policy. Anyways, the Microsoft DOC format already contains a horrendous amount of metadata, the full history of changes that led to the current document, among other things. Where's Gartner's whines about that?

Surely not ?

['Tractor' Barry (788340)]

No... say it ain't so...

Surely Microsoft aren't adding a feature to Windows without giving thorough consideration as to how the feature will work in a multi user, internet connected, environment ?

After all they've show time and time again how much they cae about these things :)

That reminds me...

[archeopterix (594938)]

My colleague at my former job once sent our boss a report in a file named 'for_dickhead_2003_11'. He changed the file name before attaching it to the email. Unfortunately, a self-reference in the file contents remained, showing the unfortunately chosen first name. Fortunately, our boss just politely reminded him to pick more neutral names, just in case.

Re:That reminds me...

[wombatmobile (623057)]

In your colleagues case it sounds like he may have been able to prevent it, but that is not always so [abanet.org] with metadata that that vendor includes in your documents.

Hahaha, must have opened porn....

[ShyGuy91284 (701108)]

Nothing worse then searching for one thing, and coming up with a "*ultra-midget-fetish-sex-in-chocolate*" result when your g/f is around.......... That's my biggest gripe of indexers. Too easy to accidently find files. Like search for your g/fs name if you want pictures of her (and she is hooking over your shoulder wanting them), she may see her name come up in a convo between you and your bud that you'd rather her not see.

Re:Hahaha, must have opened porn....

[slavemowgli (585321)]

... which, of course, would only be symptomatic of a deeper-running problem you and your girlfriend have. If you can't openly talk about your sexual interests, and if you have to hide things from each other because the other one'd go apeshit if they knew about them, then you have a bigger problem in your relationship, anyway.

Re:Hahaha, must have opened porn....

[Dun Malg (230075)]

if you have to hide things from each other because the other one'd go apeshit if they knew about them, then you have a bigger problem in your relationship, anyway.

Not necessarily. Even in the healthiest of relationships one often becomes unreasonably annoyed with one's partner, and sometimes that annoyance gets vented to others. There's nothing wrong with (say) griping to a friend over IM that your GF is driving you up the wall because "she just won't fucking shut up about how her clothes don't fit right,

Re:Hahaha, must have opened porn....

[Urusai (865560)]

You need a meta-metadata tag to set your metadata as "private". And in case your g/f gets wise and enables searching for "private" tagged metadata, you need a meta-meta-metadata tag to mark things "private for reals". If she gets wise to THAT, you just need a meta-meta-meta-metadata tag labelled "k biotch, i'm busted, just don't delete mah tubgirl pr0n".

Stupidity 101 ?

[Tom (822)]

Help me out here, but what's so difficult about not storing metadata in-line ?

After 10 years of M$ Word disclosing secret information, you'd have guessed that "a removal tool" as mentioned in the article is obvious to anyone with half a brain as not good enough.

Storing the meta-data in a seperate file, or how about with the other metadata (i.e. with the inode) isn't so hard, is it? And it is quite obviously the right thing. There's even a big, red hint right there in your face: It's called meta-data. Might want to treat it different from the actual data, you know?

Re:Stupidity 101 ?

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

I'm sure I don't really need to point out to a 3 digit UID that Microsoft's other efforts with meta-data (the registry) have been less than stellar. Seems like we're doomed to lack of security or a single point of failure.

Train those users

[wombatmobile (623057)]

It's all under control. Just train your users to manage their own metadata [microsoft.com].

Re:Stupidity 101 ?

[Tom (822)]

Gee, if anybody needs to be lectured about not storing metadata it's inline, it's the designers of Unix. Special files, directories with special names, using "From" as a message separate in mail files.

Unix stores what little metadata it natively supports in the inode, not in the file data blocks.

Special files have nothing to do with metadata, but with the Unix philosophy of "everything is a file", which works great and allows you to reduce the number of necessary system calls considerably.

I know no director

This is a BETA, Right?

[drsmack1 (698392)]

I find it a little annoying when someone does a "doom and gloom" review of a beta product, focusing on bugs or immature features. Its like doing a review of a building in progress and shouting out: "It has no roof! The rain will come right in! What are they thinking!"

The 2008 Toyota Prius

[DogDude (805747)]

I hear that the 2008 Toyota Prius will have a 7' high spoiler. What's up with that?

Oh, sorry... I just figured that we're talking about products that are still a few years down the pipe that haven't been anywhere close to finalized yet.

I don't know about anybody else, but we not only don't evaluate software years before it's released, but we generally wait until the software has been out for at least a year before even looking at it. I don't know what the point is of reviewing a product this early. The only thing that I can figure out is that it's a way to get a few more pageviews.

"embarrassing"?

[Mahou (873114)]

sounds like he's worried about people finding his porn collection when they search for seemingly unrelated things(scat music, majestic horse paintings, old lady jokes, kiddie books and toys, etc). maybe someone should just tell him not to tag that stuff

All Microsoft has to do

[m93 (684512)]

is to make the metadata attatched to document files viewable only on the Vista installation it was created on. Perhaps it would be possible to have the operating system strip the data off the files that are being copied or moved to other network locations as a precursor to each respective process. In this case, they would also have to work some kind of functionality into the next iteration of Outlook, so that the problem could be stemmed from the email side of things.

What 3rd party vendors would do to accomodate this is anyone's guess.

Re:All Microsoft has to do

[slashname3 (739398)]

Oh, that would be good. Play "try and modify the file when we think it is being sent off this system". Yet another kludge with lots of holes. Can you say zip files?

This is just another example of disclosures from the past where change log information was left in documents released to public forums. Very interesting info disclosed in some of those word documents. Must be standard procedure now for lawyers to check the change log info on documents they are sent.

And if people don't fill out the meta data info the fancy new search capabilities won't be as useful so why have them?

Yawn, non-story

[mopslik (688435)]

For example, a user might use "good customers" and "bad customers" as keywords on contract files. If such a contract is sent to the customer with the keyword still attached, it could cause embarrassment or even loss of business, the analysts wrote.

How is this different than naming your file "Invoice for Asshole Larry.doc" and mailing it to the client? Simple solution: don't put potentially embarassing stuff in the metadata fields.

Do people really need an analysis to tell them this?

Word: "Properties" and Track Changes

[G4from128k (686170)]

I've often been amused by what appears in the Properties pane of Word document sent by clients or what you can dredge up from Track Changes. Evidence of re-used documents, other projects, other clients, and deft attempts at redaction abound in the hidden metadata and edits.

The more data a computer saves (especially if hidden from plain site), the greater the chance of embarrassment and unintended leakage of sensitive info.

Re:Word: "Properties" and Track Changes

[C10H14N2 (640033)]

...and these are a few of the many reasons why I print to PDF and never, ever, ever send MS Word files.

Usefulness of metadata

[paologat (844520)]

Adding flexible metadata at the level of files does not seem such a good idea to me, especially for files that need to be transmitted or shared with others. Catalogation systems are going to be different from user to user, and from organization to organization - which is going to be messy if you mix multiple systems together.

Having something like "post-it notes" that do not stick to the file, but instead are part of the directory entry for that file, might be more useful and safer. If someone sends me a file, I don't want that person's metadata to pollute my classification of files.

That's somewhat like what happens with e-mail - I receive plenty of mails that the sender marked as "high priority", but that are low priority to me. Metadata on the file should be objective; subjective information should be stored somewhere else and not be transmitted together with the file.

Re:Usefulness of metadata

[Photon Ghoul (14932)]

Catalogation

In the interestation of securitization, the catalogation of the nation's datation should not be left to the ineptitudination of incompetentation corporatizations with a historicalization of not giving full thoughtfulination to securitization.

Company policy.

[JVert (578547)]

We never send any raw documents out to customers. We always print them to PDF first. Looking back I wonder if there is still a chance private data could be leaked, that somehow PDF layers the hidden stuff underneath and if someone were to peel back the top.

But this will just be an extension to that policy to check for any meta data.

Re:Company policy.

[arkanes (521690)]

The virtual printer technique won't preserve metadata because it's not document aware - it presents itself as a Windows printing device, the application uses standard Win API drawing commands on it, and the driver internally translates those commands into postscript and then into PDF. Do watch out for redactions, like drawing black boxes over text - the application will likely print this as the text with a box over it, which will look fine on paper but the redacted text will remain in the document. This happened at least once with a redatected DoD document, exposing them to some fairly serious embaressment because they're redacted all the negative parts of an independent audit.

The places you need to worry about metadata exposure are the document-aware "export" functionality, because rather than simply printing from primitives, these work with full knowledge of the document and it's structure.

Terms of Embarrassment

[Mulletproof (513805)]

"but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned."

Oh, you mean more embrassing than finding cookies and cached images from pr0n sites and the like? Unless you're considering self comments like "he's so hawt! I'd so tap that!" Not that you that most people's surfing already involuntarily discloses their personal data like a sieve.

I'd be less concerned about people appending credit card numbers and such to files, not embrassement.

Here is quick fix

[Ilgaz (86384)]

drwx------ 8 root admin 272 Dec 23 03:39 .Spotlight-V100

Yes, if they manage to apply rights based system system wide, something like OS X, it won't be problem.

I mean if they are stealing, steal it completely :)

Note I had to 'sudo ls -la' to see it even.
(os x 10.4 "tiger")

what planet are these people from?

[penguin-collective (932038)]

Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside. Such images can be rather small, but they offer a visual cue that aids in the searching process, Allchin said.

Kind of like Gnome has been doing for a few years now? How out of touch are these people???

Re:Windows Insecure???

[antifoidulus (807088)]

I know it's trendy here to bash windows, but this is FAR from a windows specific problem. Any file system that contains metadata could enable inadvertant disclosure of information, be it windows, mac, linux etc. The solution basically is to ensure that either a)your users are aware of what metadata is and how it works and to make sure that they get rid of any metadata on sensitive documents that they may send out or b) failing that, don't use the metadata.

Re:Windows Insecure???

[TubeSteak (669689)]

AFAIK the only two companies that cause people to regularly get publicly humiliated due to meta-data are:
Microsoft (Office)
Adobe (PDFs)

If you can think of any other companies that keep turning up, you let me know.

Re:Windows Insecure???

[Blakey Rat (99501)]

Perhaps not coincidentally, those are the only two text document formats that get passed around between corporations.

I think you're seeing a conspiracy where none exists. If, for instance, AppleWorks suddenly overnight became the most popular word processor ever, and people were passing AppleWorks bills to the local senator over email... well, you'd have the same problem, because AppleWorks (and most, if not all, word processors) keep the same meta-data as Word and PDF does.

I'm shocked

[PaxTech (103481)]

<Claude Rains>
I'm shocked, shocked to see Microsoft prioritizing features over security.
</Claude Rains>

Re:Windows Insecure???

[shawb (16347)]

All I have to say is "Follow the money" on the article

according to a compilation by Workshare, a maker of software that strips metadata out of files.

You wouldn't think that they have some invested financial interest in getting the the public overreacted about the dangers of metadata

Am I being reverse paranoid?

Google desktop is a little scary...

[QuaintRealist (905302)]

If you have any kind of data which needs to be kept private (we have HIPPA compliance to worry about at our medical office), using Google desktop is a bit scary. Yes, it allows you to "lock out" certain data sources, but on machines where private data passes in a lot of different formats, things can easily slip through the cracks.

Of course, we don't have it on our main office machines, because they are running Slackware. Our machines that are locked into Windows for hardware interface reasons had to have Desktop removed from them after a couple of almost-incidents.

YMMV

Security by obscurity

[QuaintRealist (905302)]

I'm no computer expert, but I do understand the argument against "security by obscurity" which has to do with FOSS vs closed source software.

Medicine is different, though. HIPPA basically requires that you use this kind of security (obscurity). Let me give you an example. If I have your (HIPPA protected) chart in the office on my desk, that's OK. If I leave it in the waiting room, it's not. Information does not have to be hidden from a determined (and illegal!) search, because, well, that's illegal, an

Re:Couldnt care less

[Jugalator (259273)]

LOL, did Ballmer piss in your bed this morning? :-)