March 9th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Is this due to Googles reverse engineering technology or are their spiders simply (or not so simply) so strong that they are able to delve into these files? Or both?
"PCMag reports that Googles Desktop search may be finding things in encrypted files and folders."
These are those files made encrypted by MS Office and XP. All you see is people blaming Google for showing results from encrypted files but no-one seems to be picking up on the idea that if Google can get into the files without the password then well anyone can if they reverse engineer the way Google does it.
I would like to know how many people think that it's googles fault or if it's MS's fault for making their encryption so crappy.
And how effective are the 'robots.txt' files, taken the above into consideration?
"In most gardens they make the beds too soft - so that the flowers are always asleep" - Tiger Lily
March 9th, 2005, 02:32 PM
robots.txt don't work on the Desktop Search of google..
They only work on webspiders (robots)
I personaly think it's not due to anything google did, but simply becouse the "office encryption" sucks bigtime..
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.
When in Russia, pet a PETSCII.
Get your ass over to SLAYRadio
the best station for C64 Remixes !
March 9th, 2005, 06:56 PM
IM going to go ahead and jump on the "ms security sucks" bandwagon and blame this on poor encryption on the part of MS office.
March 9th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Is this a result of the searching of the files on the drive, or as a result of caching activity? I know google desktop search will cache secure web information as well, as it caches your web activity. Is it possible this is just more of the same type of behavior?
March 10th, 2005, 04:05 AM
I thought you had to download some server application(Spyware) for them to be able to search your Desktop.
It is better to be HATED for who you are, than LOVED for who you are NOT.
THC/IP Version 4.2
March 10th, 2005, 04:49 AM
I thought Microsoft had finally gotten a clue and used AES for office document encryption...not so?
No, its all local on your computer. http://desktop.google.com/about.html#whatis see #10. At least thats what they claim, and Google has a good track record in that regard.
"Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
"...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore
March 10th, 2005, 04:51 AM
hey doc, you DO need to download the file. its a "tool" so you can search your desktop/computer/ etc.
March 10th, 2005, 07:26 AM
Wow, either I haven't been around enough or Dr.Toker came outta no where after a long hibernation. What's up dude.
Anyways, to answear the question, it is typical MS lack of common sense in predicting the future technologies. GDS has google written all over it. It is simplicity personified and is a beast at that (by beast I don't mean in a MS Exchange kind of way, I mean it is very powerful) . I played with it quite a bit when it was in the beta version. Very cool stuff. One thing that suprised me though, and they may have changed this already since I haven't played with it for awhile, but they didn't archive MSN chat. Which suprised me since it is another simple XML format....yahoo messanger is another story...I'd like to see em do that hehe.
Don\'t be a bitch! Use Slackware.
March 10th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Google, from what I've heard, likes to utilize CommonLisp for a lot of their development, if this is the case then it is entirely possible that the strength of the google programs has allowed them to see encrypted information, after all Lisp is a very large, powerful language that is very good at parsing data. This has led me to a question. What version of office are these encrypted documents being read from? If it's an older version, the encryption probably isn't AES, because M$ hadn't implemented it yet. Also if it is AES, then AES needs a different cypher because Google has apparently broken Rijndael and a better algorithm needs to be the standard.
More than likely, google hasn't broken AES, but rather has broken M$'s "encryption" which is likely not really encryption at all, but is some other algorithm (no idea which one) that simply resembles encryption.
I don't see why people are complaining about it, especially since THEY are the ones that downloaded the Google Desktop to begin with. They weren't forced to do so.
\"When in Rome, eat Rome!\" -Godzilla