Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question
Trevor Freeman <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com> Tue, 19 April 2011 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: plasma@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plasma@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4718E081E for <plasma@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U4k5Uju09KQU for <plasma@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.exchange.microsoft.com (mail7.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.1.27]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C95E06F9 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from df-h14-01.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.78.139) by DF-G14-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.87.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:34 -0700
Received: from PIO-MLT-05.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.94.22) by DF-H14-01.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.78.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.8; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:33 -0700
Received: from DF-M14-12.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::7c94:4036:120:c95f]) by PIO-MLT-05.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::d940:e316:1daa:5e6a%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:13:32 -0700
From: Trevor Freeman <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Thread-Topic: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question
Thread-Index: Acv+12enYPbxA8mtTICquFGvp+a95AAPZcuAAAwRLoA=
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:13:31 +0000
Message-ID: <E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D33A00438@DF-M14-12.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D33A0036D@DF-M14-12.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <4DAE012B.9030809@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4DAE012B.9030809@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.100]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D33A00438DFM1412exchange_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "plasma@ietf.org" <plasma@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question
X-BeenThere: plasma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <plasma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma>
List-Post: <mailto:plasma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:13:38 -0000
OPC = Open Packaging Convention; it's the official standard name for zip files. The attraction of an OPC solution is you can protect anything just as you can zip anything so it would generate a universal solution. Both OOXML and ODF are widely used standards with multi-vendor support. The reason to cited them as examples is that they have a documented file format with extension points we could use to build a solution. I doubt the OOXML\ODF thing will go away just like pkix has cmc and cmp:) Would you consider OPC a more neutral solution? -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 2:40 PM To: Trevor Freeman Cc: plasma@ietf.org Subject: Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question I've no idea what OPC is but I'd have thought that OOXML would likely be controversial - or have all the word processing types made up since the OOXML/ODF kerfuffle [1] of a few years ago? S. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardization_process On 19/04/11 22:19, Trevor Freeman wrote: > Having agreed that files and are the conceptually the same as email > from a policy access control perspective, there is one important distinction. > > > > Email has a standard mechanism to define multiple parts of a message > to represent different aspects of the message i.e. MIME. > > > > We don't have that for files so we don't have a simple generic way to > attach the extra metadata to a file. > > > > Some standard file formats have specific extension mechanisms we can > use e.g. OOXML which would allow you to define a way to attach the > plasma metadata to the file type in question. > > > > Alternatively there exist generic file container standards what can > hold any combination of files and data e.g. OPC which would provide a > generic solution for any file type. > > > > If we were to expand files for consideration with Plasma, which would > be the best first step, a specific solution like OOXML or a generic > solution such as OPC? > > > > *Dr Trevor Freeman* Senior Security Strategist > > *End to End Trust Team > <http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/default.mspx>* > > *Microsoft Trustworthy > Computing<http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/default.mspx>* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > plasma mailing list > plasma@ietf.org<mailto:plasma@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
- [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question Stephen Farrell
- Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question Stephen Farrell
- Re: [plasma] Plasma and File protection Question Phillip Hallam-Baker