T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
847.1 | Special handling | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid??? | Wed Jun 10 1992 19:33 | 6 |
| One way would be to invoke special handling for each of the documents.
Define a new handling, for example NOPRINT, in the FORMAT master, and then
specify a print option that just puts out an error message telling them they
can't print this document.
F
|
847.2 | Print this and you're fired! | HOTAIR::MADDOX | When in doubt, change it | Wed Jun 10 1992 19:41 | 40 |
| Mehran,
How about a policy change, i.e., I see stuff all the time which says,
"Digital Confidential," or "For Digital Use Only," etc. I know that this
means if I let someone see it who shouldn't, I'm in serious trouble.
Are you attempting to prevent people from accidentally printing something
they know they shouldn't or are you trying to preclude anyone's intention-
ally printing a classified document?
The latter would be quite difficult. You would have to keep them from
exporting the document to VMS where they could bypass any customizations
you have made to ALL-IN-1 and use VMS to print it. You would need to find
a way to keep them from printing the .WPS file from VMS. (It might not
make pretty print but it would be legible.) Assuming that you have marked
the file cabinet record with some flag that would tell your print script
not to print it, what would keep someone from doing a GOLD G of the text
into another document and printing it. If some text in the document it-
self is the flag (i.e., the print script searches the document for
"confidential" or some such and refuses to print it if found, what keeps
the user from deleting this text and printing it?
If the former is your objective, it should be possible. A simplistic
approach might be to have users append the string "(CONFIDENTIAL)" to the
title of documents which shouldn't be printed and then modify the WPPRINT
script to check for this string in the document title before printing.
You would want to look also at the section in WPPRINT:
for CAB$ATTACH do
and check the title of the attached documents for the string. Remember,
this would be really easy for the user to curcumvent. All he needs to do
is refile it with a different name and print it.
Someone can probably come up with a much more ingenious approach, giving
it more thought than I have. Maybe this will help start the discussion.
Good luck,
Joe
|
847.3 | Collision! | HOTAIR::MADDOX | When in doubt, change it | Wed Jun 10 1992 19:47 | 12 |
| I like Frank's idea much better than the "put something in the title"
dribble, but...
Frank,
How would you assign this handling to the necessary documents? Add a
CCD (Create classified document) option maybe?
All the cautions in .2 would still apply. Someone could still export
the document to VMS and print it, or do a GOLD G on the text, etc.
Joe
|
847.4 | Manual system? | IOSG::TALLETT | Arranging bits for a living... | Wed Jun 10 1992 20:00 | 16 |
|
I'd try and store the files encrypted somehow to prevent people
bypassing my mechanisms and have a customisation to list the
docs onto the screen. However, print screen on a terminal or
cut/paste on a workstation are tough nuts to crack and have
given the "secure environment" folks quite a problem.
Probably the complete answer is to install secure VMS and a whole
host of other time consuming things, so it probably isn't worth
it.
My solution? Print it out ONCE, DELETE/ERASE it from the system and
have someone look after it and not let it out of their sight...
Regards,
Paul
|
847.5 | Just a suggestion | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid??? | Thu Jun 11 1992 02:33 | 16 |
| Re: .3
� All the cautions in .2 would still apply. Someone could still export
� the document to VMS and print it, or do a GOLD G on the text, etc.
No question about it; it was not meant as a "bullet-proof" security
answer, but as a user-friendly way of doing what .1 suggested, namely, just
stopping inadvertent printing. If this must be bullet-proof, you're going to
have some problems no matter *what* you do, just for the various reasons
mentioned earlier.
The handling can be done quite simply; even at the API level, you could
always just set the FORMAT field, as long as you'd defined that handling
correctly.
F
|
847.6 | | IOSG::WDAVIES | Winton Davies,IOSG | Thu Jun 11 1992 12:10 | 3 |
| FORMAT wouldn't work on attachments...
Winton
|