Slashdot Log In
Few of OOXML's Flaws Have Been Addressed
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:39 PM
from the digging-under-the-hood dept.
from the digging-under-the-hood dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "IBM's Rob Weir has done a study on how many flaws were addressed by the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting. So far, using a random sampling technique, he has yet to find a flaw that was addressed, making the upper bound a paltry 1.5%. Even so, he's found a number of new flaws, including a security vulnerability: OOXML stores passwords in database connection strings in plain text. At least there were no mistakes on five of the first twenty five random pages he reviewed."
Related Stories
Submission: BRM Addressed No More Than 1.5% of OOXML's Flaws by Anonymous Coward
[+]
New Rules Created For OOXML Vote 66 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "There are new rules to follow for any NB that wishes to change their vote on OOXML after the lack of resolution at the recent Ballot Resolution Meeting. After comparing it to previous instructions, it seems that they only have until March 29th, they need to email several specific people, that email must be sent by certain people, and they need to confirm it in writing as well, most likely via registered mail. Even Groklaw's PJ, who made sense of many of SCO's filings, finds all the requirements a little confusing. But anyone who wants to disapprove of OOXML had better dot every 'i' and cross every 't' if they want their vote to count, if past behavior is any indication."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Office 2007 (Score:5, Interesting)
Do any of these flaws exist in Office 2007?
If not, why are they in the OOXML proposed standard. If the standard does not describe the OOXML format used by Microsoft, then what does it describe?
Why can't they just document the format that they use and get this over with? Or are they doing all this for show, and there is no real substance in OOXML?
Re:Office 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason MS is bothering with ISO is because a few places have started to require that documents be stored in an ISO defined format.
The problem is that having a true ISO defined format means that you open yourself up to competition, so MS wants to get their format defined as ISO certified without allowing any competition.
Parent
Re:Office 2007 (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll remember Stéphane Rodriguez who gave us Microsoft Office XML formats? Defective by design [blogspot.com] back in August, 2007?
Since then, in February, 2008 he produced The truth about Microsoft Office compatibility [blogspot.com] and Typical B.S. in technical articles about OOXML [blogspot.com] and now Bad surprise in Microsoft Office binary documents : interoperability remains impossible [blogspot.com] Thursday, March 13, 2008.
These blogs are at the same level of depth as Rob Weir's latest blog, and demonstrate that Microsoft's policies as detailed below continue to this day.
From OOXML is defective by design...
"Mr Bill Gates in person sent in 1998 a memo to the Office product group (led by Steven Sinofsky at the time), memo undisclosed to the public thanks to the IOWA consumer case :"
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.
-----------
Clearly the word is getting out about the problems in OOXML. Stéphane Rodriguez notes at the bottom of OOXML - Defective by design:
Update : this article was Slashdotted on Sunday 26 of August.
Update2 : this article is taking 300,000 hits a day, and is making it all around the world in all kinds of sites. My web host provider was so angry at the peak in traffic that he threatened to cut me off, so I had to redirect to a blog site such as Google's blogger to host the article.
Update3 : wednesday august 29, added a new section on Document security
Update4 : friday august 31, added more content to sections US English and Windows dates
Update5 : sunday september 2, added a quick comparison between ODF and ECMA 376
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, a true, open, unencumbered standard will instead prevail.
Re:Office 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not that OOXML is bad, it is that OOXML is broken and MSFT is trying to ram it through anyways. there is nothing there that can't be fixed. MSFT however doesn't want it fixed because OOXML 2010 is just around the corner and it won't be the same as OOXML 2007. Also OOXML 2010 becomes a defaco standard even though it isn't ISO certified since it is marketed as OOXML.
this is how MSFT works if you don't know this then go back and look at the past 30 years of how MSFT treats it's customers, vendors, and slaves.
Parent
Re:Office 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that there ARE no implementations of OOXML, however, should be a giant, florescent, waving red flag. No standards body should adopt a standard that cannot and will not be implemented by the proposers.
Parent
Re:Office 2007 (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. And the lack of existing implementations makes OOXML all the more inappropriate for the fast track process, which is intended for existing de facto standards, meaning (a) widely implemented and (b) with broad consensus in the relevant field.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The database connection flaw may not be in Office either, because Office may force System DSNs rather than real connection strings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, a spreadsheet is often the favored client for an OLAP system, and complex spreadsheets will get reused a lot, so connection strings may be part of the overall "application" that the document has become.
People like me and (probably) you tend to use documents as just that: documents. But in the big boy's world, they're far more important than that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But in the big boy's world, they're far more important than that.
I acknowledge that hooking documents into databases to subvert them into workflow process template beasties is a common practice, but I think the simple question "Why are there database passwords in the document?" kind of highlights that this is a bad practice.
If security is a concern, "Document Applications" are a mistake.
This also violates the (good) Model/View/Controller [wikipedia.org] software architectural model by kludging the view and controller together in the same product. And - despite claims that it cuts
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This also violates the (good) Model/View/Controller software architectural model by kludging the view and controller together in the same product.
No, not really. Think a simple mailmerge with data from the database. There is no Controller, only a model (the DB) and the View (the document). You fetch the data from the database and mailmerge it.
Yes, I have read that a compelling reason to stick to Microsoft Office is the ability to Mailmerge, which is fine. I have never gone through the hoops to perform a Mailmerge, so bare with me. My belief is that the whole purpose to send the date (in the database) through the document (which is the controller) to a printer (where it can be viewed). This simple/trivial application actually does separate Data/View/Controller.
Saying there is no controller is like saying there is no spoon. Just because it
Re: (Score:2)
I guess so but i figured the document itself would name the data resources it needs and it would be up to the application to actually connect and retrieve the data. I wonder if the document itself can initiate a connection and execute a command. It basically does a "select" to pull data in, c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd be interested in what is the alternative to storing them in plaintext in the document format. See, the database is going to be wanting that password, and it must be stored somewhere in the document in a stand-alone way or remembered by the user. If you encrypt it, you need to provide the keys in the same document or use a constant well-known key across all ins
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a security flaw to store passwords in plain text - or at least, 'encrypting' them with some fixed algorithm gives no security benefit. At best it's security through obscurity.
In fact, it's surprisingly sensible of Microsoft to recognize this, given the 'compressible encryption' and other non-security security nonsense they provide in other products.
Not how should it be done, but why it shouldn't be (Score:2)
Look at it from another angle. Imagine that I need to connect to the database using the connection string, a@mycompany.com:mypass. I send you the document, but you're on another network. You don't s
Re: (Score:2)
enough is enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seriously considering wiping all the PC's in my office and advising the staff to just learn Ubuntu to avoid this whole MS deathgrip. None of the staff are advanced users except my web guy who codes in a text editor anyhow. FMS.
What's the point? Who is going to follow this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? Who is going to follow this? (Score:5, Insightful)
As with everything MS does it is all about control and money. They have observed the fights that took/are taking place at various governmental and state levels over the mandatory use of an open standard - and they see that it is a threat to their monopoly, hence they have strategised to nullify the problem without giving up any of their control. The whole thing is a rate 10 sham. And if anyone ever wants to know why a lot of people don't trust MS then this is a perfect example of it - the process and the mockery they are making of it is frankly satirical.
Parent
Re:What's the point? Who is going to follow this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then we will tell them that Microsoft is actually not implementing their own damn standard correctly, and we will be laughed away - after all, Microsoft *IS* the standard, so how could it be incorrect?
And it will all be business as usual...
The whole thing makes me intensely sad. By the way, we had some articles about the Dutch government requiring open formats a while ago. I professed severe scepticism at the time. Let me give you a little update on that one, then: as it is, the new desktops are required to support a very wide range of technologies that can ONLY be fullfilled by having MS Office on MS Windows. So although the government requires open standards, it also requires Active Directory, for example. And guess what they are buying? Yes, that's right: MS Office on MS Windows. But, we are told, in the next round (in 2011 or so), there will definitely be an opportunity for Linux "because in this round we are already ensuring compatibility".
As I said, business as usual.
Parent
So he wants security through obscurity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who claims that it's more secure to obscure the password in a well known and trivially reversible way instead of simply storing it in plain text is not someone I trust to analyze security.
no kidding, that would make things worse (Score:2)
The word that comes to mind is "dumbass".
I do hope there is an option to have an "ask the user" password. (not stored in file)
Implement first, standardize later. (Score:3, Insightful)
MSOOXML is not standard quality (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason that this thing is considered in ISO is because Microsoft is being so bullish, trying to defend the monopoly.
Standards are not religons (Score:3, Insightful)
And now for some selective quotations! (Score:3, Funny)
"IBM's Rob Weir has done a study on how many flaws were addressed by the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting. So far, using a random sampling technique, he has yet to find a flaw [...] there were no mistakes on [...] the [...] pages he reviewed."
There. Doesn't that sound better?
OOXML approved by NIST (Score:3, Informative)
I hope y'all are gentle with them... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Funny)
Not any more.....
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think payment is necessary though, given enough people in any subset, you'll always be able to find the one that doesn't get it.
Re:Who said said OOXML is a "superb standard" ?? (Score:4, Informative)
It was Miguel de Icaza [wikipedia.org], and he is paid money indirectly from Microsoft since he works for Novell.
One of the reasons I stopped using GNOME, I don't want anything to do with the Mono project.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, attacks on ones character may not be considered "ad hominem" unless it is being use to refute an argument. This is probably the most co
Um, this is a perfect example of "ad hominem"... (Score:2)
"Rob Weir made the following mistakes in his methodology:
a)
b)
c)
"
Nope. He based his 'argument' on his perception of Rob Weir.
Re:Um, this is a perfect example of "ad hominem".. (Score:4, Informative)
One example given by wikipedia is:
Just replace the relevant references with words like IBM, OOXML, etc. and it's basically the same.
Parent
Re: ad hominem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Small bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes his company maybe bias in not wanting the format approved, but does that make what he says less true? The facts speak the truth.
Parent
Who else? (Score:5, Insightful)
At what point has IBM been dishonest? Rob Weir is an employee of IBM. They have a distinct interest in making sure that whatever format is approved, they are able to implement it. Therefore, it is in their best interest to make sure it is a good standard. As they have determined that it isn't a good standard, what should they do? Not talk about it?
The fact that his bias is out in the open is perfectly fine, as is the example you give from Peter Torr. That allows people to judge their statements, and account for possible bias.
The problem with Weir recusing himself is this: nobody else seems to be doing this. Nobody else is standing up to a corrupted process, where the intended and stated results are sidelined for political expediency. If it takes one corrupt company to stand up to another corrupt company, then so be it. At least they are standing up to a corrupt company. (Yes, I'd prefer if neither were corrupt.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Spend five minutes looking at the article and the page it's on. To his credit, it's not something he tries to hide.
Exhibit A: a link in his sidebar to an article which refers to OOXML as "the document format from Hell." [noooxml.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Small bias? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you won't verify anything, or even check, but rather you feel that the exact same thing from someone else would be more true. Essentially, despite the facts, you don't feel the truthiness is sufficient.
By your logic, you may well be right, but you may also just be a shill for Microsoft. I'd be more inclined to believe someone else who didn't have a corporate interesting in picking data points to disparage the argument you'd like to make. Or maybe if you had an argument to make not based on a well-known informal fallacy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is asking you to "believe" anything. Bias does not change facts, and it is a fallacy to suggest that he should be a perfectly impartial critic if he is to be taken seriously. If he makes observations of deficiencies in the format they are just as valid as if they were made by Bill Gates himself.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)