Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #457880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-28 14:52 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-30 07:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-04-28 14:52 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-04-28 16:55 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-28 23:52 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-28 23:56 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-04-28 15:10 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-28 15:35 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-04-28 16:26 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-28 17:18 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 12:27 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-02 06:53 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 16:34 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-02 08:12 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-03 12:24 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-03 22:02 +1000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-03 08:01 +1000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-29 00:54 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-28 15:19 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-04-28 16:34 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-28 16:37 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-04-29 06:44 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 06:47 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 23:43 +0100
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-28 16:41 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-29 09:18 +1000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-04-28 16:30 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-29 09:51 +1000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:14 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:27 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-04-29 21:33 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 03:11 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 22:18 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-28 19:28 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-04-29 06:17 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-04-29 10:09 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 07:27 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-29 08:05 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 11:17 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 12:13 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc krw@notreal.com - 2017-04-28 23:10 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-04-29 06:45 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Dimitrij Klingbeil <nospam@no-address.com> - 2017-04-29 16:48 +0200
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 08:26 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-04-29 10:31 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-29 08:12 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-04-29 13:28 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:56 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 11:24 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-29 12:01 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 12:21 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-29 12:29 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 13:01 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-04-30 09:53 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 12:15 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 12:16 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-04-30 14:42 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 13:25 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 13:25 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 13:51 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 15:32 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:20 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 20:43 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:11 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-04-30 21:16 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 11:53 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 09:40 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-01 11:31 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 12:25 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 15:46 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 12:55 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 16:10 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 13:41 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-05-01 11:14 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 15:48 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-01 11:28 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 15:59 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-01 13:25 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-01 16:31 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 13:49 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-01 17:54 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 19:22 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-01 20:16 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-02 07:35 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-02 20:17 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-05-01 21:31 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-01 23:39 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-02 11:35 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-03 08:09 +1000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-04-30 21:41 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 15:26 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-01 04:17 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 10:05 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-01 11:38 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-04 10:18 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-04 17:17 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-05-11 05:39 +0000
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-11 09:10 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 15:12 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-01 00:08 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 09:11 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-01 17:48 -0500
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-01 18:30 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 20:56 +0100
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-29 12:51 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-29 13:36 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-04-29 14:09 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-04-30 08:33 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 07:25 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-04-30 15:48 -0400
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 13:13 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-01 06:52 -0700
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-04-30 01:57 -0800
Re: PADS schematic into Word doc John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-04-30 07:29 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe65rb$fdl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458167 |
On 4/30/2017 3:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:51:43 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2017 1:25 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:42:03 -0500, "Tim Williams"
>>> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:oe5ct4$5q9$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best practice is simply to not leak information that you don't want
>>>>> to leak.
>>>>
>>>> Aww c'mon Don, where's your sense of adventure? It's not like that's ever
>>>> bitten anyone before. :)
>>>>
>>>> And most of John's customers are publicly funded... our government is all
>>>> about open information, right?! :^)
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Our biggest customers right now are non-USA, non defense, but you
>>> could argue that all industries are government funded.
>>>
>>> What's dangerous is change tracking in Word. That can expose the
>>> entire edit history. I never enable that, but some people do, and you
>>> have to purge the edit history before sending a doc out. Whenever
>>> possible, we print to PDF and send that.
>>
>> Word stores *lots* of "invisible" information:
>> - Comments
>> - Revision marks
>> - Annotations
>> - Versions
>> (and the names of the people responsible for each of these)
>> - Author
>> - Subject
>> - Title
>> - Date created
>> - Name of most recent person modifying it
>> - Template names
>> - Watermarks
>> - Text (and other objects) *intended* to be hidden
>> - URL of document server and related properties
>>
>> And, that's just the stuff MS thinks you should be aware of
>> (create two identical documents in two different instances
>> of the same version of MSWord running on different computers
>> with synchronized clocks and see if they differ! :> )
>>
>> Of course, objects pasted into the document can also contain
>> "invisible" stuff (name of the person who took a photo,
>> brand/model camera that took it, date, where on the globe
>> it was taken, etc.)
>>
>> It might be embarassing for a customer to discover that the
>> document resided in C:\Documents\UnfavoredCustomers\Proposal.docx
>> Or, that it was authored by "SummerIntern" despite YOUR claim
>> to have personally written it. etc.
>>
>> Do you know which of these things Word pushes into the PDF that
>> *it* creates?
>
> We use a virtual printer, CutePDF or Foxit, to make PDFs. I'm
> optimistic that what goes out is about what a real printer would put
> onto paper. Maybe JPEGS have some camera info included. Heck, I never
> set the dates on my cameras, and everything passes through Irfanview.
IME, folks like to put their names in/on things:
Computer name: "Bob's Computer"
"This software licensed to John Doe"
Copyright (automatically stamped in photos taken): "Alfred E Newman"
etc.
And, then *forget* that they have done this -- or, that they even were
ASKED/offered to do this.
I use descriptive identifiers in place of names. E.g., a workstation
used to create animations might be called "Animation Workstation"
and the primary user "Director". The software licensed on it would
carry the same sorts of names.
So, if I fail to sanitize something before publication, the "information"
that is leaked is effectively meaningless.
[Note that this doesn't make me anonymous -- as someone/spooks *could* trace
the publications back to that machine. That's not the goal of these efforts.]
> For ultimate security, I guess we could print to paper and scan that
> to PDF.
Or, *know* what's expected to be *in* the file/document -- AND, make
a conscious decision to accept that (or not).
[This itself isn't a guarantee that thee isn't information concealed in
the document steganographically]
What usually happens is people are naive/ignorant about "stuff they can't
see" and end up disclosing things they wish they hadn't (hard to take
back information once it's been set free!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9lbdgc9ivhhedcd5563due304tgqf3cio4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458183 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:20:49 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 4/30/2017 3:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:51:43 -0700, Don Y >> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 4/30/2017 1:25 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:42:03 -0500, "Tim Williams" >>>> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:oe5ct4$5q9$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>> >>>>>> Best practice is simply to not leak information that you don't want >>>>>> to leak. >>>>> >>>>> Aww c'mon Don, where's your sense of adventure? It's not like that's ever >>>>> bitten anyone before. :) >>>>> >>>>> And most of John's customers are publicly funded... our government is all >>>>> about open information, right?! :^) >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Our biggest customers right now are non-USA, non defense, but you >>>> could argue that all industries are government funded. >>>> >>>> What's dangerous is change tracking in Word. That can expose the >>>> entire edit history. I never enable that, but some people do, and you >>>> have to purge the edit history before sending a doc out. Whenever >>>> possible, we print to PDF and send that. >>> >>> Word stores *lots* of "invisible" information: >>> - Comments >>> - Revision marks >>> - Annotations >>> - Versions >>> (and the names of the people responsible for each of these) >>> - Author >>> - Subject >>> - Title >>> - Date created >>> - Name of most recent person modifying it >>> - Template names >>> - Watermarks >>> - Text (and other objects) *intended* to be hidden >>> - URL of document server and related properties >>> >>> And, that's just the stuff MS thinks you should be aware of >>> (create two identical documents in two different instances >>> of the same version of MSWord running on different computers >>> with synchronized clocks and see if they differ! :> ) >>> >>> Of course, objects pasted into the document can also contain >>> "invisible" stuff (name of the person who took a photo, >>> brand/model camera that took it, date, where on the globe >>> it was taken, etc.) >>> >>> It might be embarassing for a customer to discover that the >>> document resided in C:\Documents\UnfavoredCustomers\Proposal.docx >>> Or, that it was authored by "SummerIntern" despite YOUR claim >>> to have personally written it. etc. >>> >>> Do you know which of these things Word pushes into the PDF that >>> *it* creates? >> >> We use a virtual printer, CutePDF or Foxit, to make PDFs. I'm >> optimistic that what goes out is about what a real printer would put >> onto paper. Maybe JPEGS have some camera info included. Heck, I never >> set the dates on my cameras, and everything passes through Irfanview. > >IME, folks like to put their names in/on things: > Computer name: "Bob's Computer" > "This software licensed to John Doe" > Copyright (automatically stamped in photos taken): "Alfred E Newman" >etc. > >And, then *forget* that they have done this -- or, that they even were >ASKED/offered to do this. My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no secret. "John's Computer" neither -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 21:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe6caq$fsq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458191 |
On 4/30/2017 8:43 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:20:49 -0700, Don Y > <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > >> On 4/30/2017 3:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:51:43 -0700, Don Y >>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/30/2017 1:25 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:42:03 -0500, "Tim Williams" >>>>> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>> news:oe5ct4$5q9$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best practice is simply to not leak information that you don't want >>>>>>> to leak. >>>>>> >>>>>> Aww c'mon Don, where's your sense of adventure? It's not like that's ever >>>>>> bitten anyone before. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> And most of John's customers are publicly funded... our government is all >>>>>> about open information, right?! :^) >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> Our biggest customers right now are non-USA, non defense, but you >>>>> could argue that all industries are government funded. >>>>> >>>>> What's dangerous is change tracking in Word. That can expose the >>>>> entire edit history. I never enable that, but some people do, and you >>>>> have to purge the edit history before sending a doc out. Whenever >>>>> possible, we print to PDF and send that. >>>> >>>> Word stores *lots* of "invisible" information: >>>> - Comments >>>> - Revision marks >>>> - Annotations >>>> - Versions >>>> (and the names of the people responsible for each of these) >>>> - Author >>>> - Subject >>>> - Title >>>> - Date created >>>> - Name of most recent person modifying it >>>> - Template names >>>> - Watermarks >>>> - Text (and other objects) *intended* to be hidden >>>> - URL of document server and related properties >>>> >>>> And, that's just the stuff MS thinks you should be aware of >>>> (create two identical documents in two different instances >>>> of the same version of MSWord running on different computers >>>> with synchronized clocks and see if they differ! :> ) >>>> >>>> Of course, objects pasted into the document can also contain >>>> "invisible" stuff (name of the person who took a photo, >>>> brand/model camera that took it, date, where on the globe >>>> it was taken, etc.) >>>> >>>> It might be embarassing for a customer to discover that the >>>> document resided in C:\Documents\UnfavoredCustomers\Proposal.docx >>>> Or, that it was authored by "SummerIntern" despite YOUR claim >>>> to have personally written it. etc. >>>> >>>> Do you know which of these things Word pushes into the PDF that >>>> *it* creates? >>> >>> We use a virtual printer, CutePDF or Foxit, to make PDFs. I'm >>> optimistic that what goes out is about what a real printer would put >>> onto paper. Maybe JPEGS have some camera info included. Heck, I never >>> set the dates on my cameras, and everything passes through Irfanview. >> >> IME, folks like to put their names in/on things: >> Computer name: "Bob's Computer" >> "This software licensed to John Doe" >> Copyright (automatically stamped in photos taken): "Alfred E Newman" >> etc. >> >> And, then *forget* that they have done this -- or, that they even were >> ASKED/offered to do this. > > My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no > secret. "John's Computer" neither Work-for-hire: the *client's* name is on the documents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ccdgc96a96psdd5can6rrrils23pc5odj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458191 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >secret. "John's Computer" neither These might help: "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> "Using the Document Inspector" <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> "Metadata in MS Office" <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various readers: <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> and cleaners: <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8e1b26ea-d588-e158-caf6-83a3d1977fd6@electrooptical.net> |
| In reply to | #458193 |
On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >> secret. "John's Computer" neither > > These might help: > > "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" > <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> > > "Using the Document Inspector" > <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> > > "Metadata in MS Office" > <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> > > Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various > readers: > <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> > <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> > and cleaners: > <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> > > Not an issue in LaTeX! Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe7o7r$mhk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458232 |
On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no
>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>
>> These might help:
>>
>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>
>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>
>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>
>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>> readers:
>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>> and cleaners:
>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>
> Not an issue in LaTeX!
Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
By way of example(s):
% This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
OR
% sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
(same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
OR
\end{document}
This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
OR
\newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
...
\comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
him think he really got his money worth!}
OR
\usepackage{comment}
...
\begin{comment}
This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
Marketing wanted it included
\end{comment}
OR
(deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
\usepackage[final]{fixme}
\fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
...
\fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
OR
\iffalse
Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
\fi
OR
...
Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the document
in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes MORE of
a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
\let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gjvegctl2liead919ng72del1k4kt0jrn8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458236 |
On Mon, 1 May 2017 09:40:50 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
>On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no
>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>>
>>> These might help:
>>>
>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>>
>>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>>
>>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>>
>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>>> readers:
>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>>> and cleaners:
>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>>
>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>
>Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
>to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
>By way of example(s):
>
>% This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
>
>OR
>
>% sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
>(same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
>
>OR
>
>\end{document}
>This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
>
>OR
>
>\newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
>...
>\comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
>that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
>deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
>him think he really got his money worth!}
>
>OR
>
>\usepackage{comment}
>...
>\begin{comment}
> This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
> Marketing wanted it included
>\end{comment}
>
>OR
>
>(deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
>
>\usepackage[final]{fixme}
>\fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
>...
>\fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
>noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
>
>OR
>
>\iffalse
> Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
>\fi
>
>OR
>
>...
>
>Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
>engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
>preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the document
>in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes MORE of
>a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
>
>Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
>
>\let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
>jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
>~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
>pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
>Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
>8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
I do often include a lot of design notes, and questions, in a
preliminary manual, for in-house use. I strip all that for the final
user manual, after things are settled. So I do NOT want change
tracking enabled, and the users get a "printed" PDF file.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe81sk$p9e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458253 |
On 5/1/2017 11:31 AM, John Larkin wrote: > I do often include a lot of design notes, and questions, in a > preliminary manual, for in-house use. I strip all that for the final > user manual, after things are settled. So I do NOT want change > tracking enabled, and the users get a "printed" PDF file. My current manual is incompatible with any of the existing container/print formats so I have to think hard about how to address "offline" reading. I may have to simply decide that you can only "read" it when you are using the product as the effort to make an "offline reader" (for PC, Mac, etc.) is largely wasted effort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 15:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4eudnb_cGsIPDZrEnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #458236 |
On 05/01/2017 12:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no
>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>>
>>> These might help:
>>>
>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>>
>>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>>
>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>>> readers:
>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>>>
>>> and cleaners:
>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>>
>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>
> Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
> to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
> By way of example(s):
>
> % This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
>
> OR
>
> % sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
> (same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
>
> OR
>
> \end{document}
> This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
>
> OR
>
> \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
> ....
> \comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
> that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
> deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
> him think he really got his money worth!}
>
> OR
>
> \usepackage{comment}
> ....
> \begin{comment}
> This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
> Marketing wanted it included
> \end{comment}
>
> OR
>
> (deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
>
> \usepackage[final]{fixme}
> \fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
> ....
> \fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
> noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
>
> OR
>
> \iffalse
> Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
> \fi
>
> OR
>
> ....
>
> Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
> engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
> preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the document
> in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes MORE of
> a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
>
> Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
>
> \let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
> jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
> ~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
> pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
> Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
> 8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
1. People who are deliberately stupid like that deserve what they get.
With LaTeX you have to shoot yourself in the foot deliberately, whereas
Office does it for you. Nice automation feature. :(
2. Stuff in an \iffalse block doesn't appear anywhere in the output.
3. You don't have to reverse engineer anything. If nobody is saying
anything stupid in the LaTeX source, nothing stupid winds up in the PDF.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe83kb$1ia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458261 |
On 5/1/2017 12:46 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 12:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no
>>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>>>
>>>> These might help:
>>>>
>>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>>>
>>>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>>>
>>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>>>> readers:
>>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>>>>
>>>> and cleaners:
>>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>>>
>>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>>
>> Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
>> to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
>> By way of example(s):
>>
>> % This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
>>
>> OR
>>
>> % sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
>> (same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
>>
>> OR
>>
>> \end{document}
>> This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
>>
>> OR
>>
>> \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
>> ....
>> \comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
>> that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
>> deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
>> him think he really got his money worth!}
>>
>> OR
>>
>> \usepackage{comment}
>> ....
>> \begin{comment}
>> This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
>> Marketing wanted it included
>> \end{comment}
>>
>> OR
>>
>> (deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
>>
>> \usepackage[final]{fixme}
>> \fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
>> ....
>> \fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
>> noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
>>
>> OR
>>
>> \iffalse
>> Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
>> \fi
>>
>> OR
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
>> engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
>> preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the document
>> in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes MORE of
>> a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
>>
>> Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
>>
>> \let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
>> jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
>> ~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
>> pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
>> Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
>> 8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
>
> 1. People who are deliberately stupid like that deserve what they get.
> With LaTeX you have to shoot yourself in the foot deliberately, whereas
> Office does it for you. Nice automation feature. :(
>
> 2. Stuff in an \iffalse block doesn't appear anywhere in the output.
>
> 3. You don't have to reverse engineer anything. If nobody is saying
> anything stupid in the LaTeX source, nothing stupid winds up in the PDF.
That assumes you saddle yourself with having to WRITE LaTeX source!
Most folks prefer to use tools to avoid having to write everything
from scratch. Once you drag a tool into the mix, all bets are
off (unless you manually peruse the output of that tool)
E.g., FrameMaker produces MIF -- which is just as readable as
any other markup language. But, I'd be silly to waste my time
reading it -- or WRITING it!
Do you write your own PostScript code, too? Still programming
in ASM? :>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 16:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vfidnUV3__O6C5rEnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #458263 |
On 05/01/2017 03:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/1/2017 12:46 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 05/01/2017 12:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so
>>>>>> that's no
>>>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>>>>
>>>>> These might help:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>>>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>>>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>>>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>>>>> readers:
>>>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>>>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and cleaners:
>>>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>>>>
>>>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>>>
>>> Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
>>> to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
>>> By way of example(s):
>>>
>>> % This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> % sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
>>> (same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> \end{document}
>>> This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
>>> ....
>>> \comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
>>> that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
>>> deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
>>> him think he really got his money worth!}
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> \usepackage{comment}
>>> ....
>>> \begin{comment}
>>> This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
>>> Marketing wanted it included
>>> \end{comment}
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> (deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
>>>
>>> \usepackage[final]{fixme}
>>> \fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
>>> ....
>>> \fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
>>> noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> \iffalse
>>> Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
>>> \fi
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
>>> engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
>>> preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the
>>> document
>>> in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes
>>> MORE of
>>> a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
>>>
>>> Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
>>>
>>> \let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
>>> jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
>>> ~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
>>> pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
>>> Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
>>> 8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
>>
>> 1. People who are deliberately stupid like that deserve what they get.
>> With LaTeX you have to shoot yourself in the foot deliberately, whereas
>> Office does it for you. Nice automation feature. :(
>>
>> 2. Stuff in an \iffalse block doesn't appear anywhere in the output.
>>
>> 3. You don't have to reverse engineer anything. If nobody is saying
>> anything stupid in the LaTeX source, nothing stupid winds up in the PDF.
>
> That assumes you saddle yourself with having to WRITE LaTeX source!
I much prefer writing LaTeX source to futzing with menus that change
completely from release to release.
I've been doing it for years--I switched my book MS from WordPerfect 5.1
for DOS to LaTeX about a dozen years ago. Before that I used Script/VS
and Bookmaster for papers and stuff. The last significant document I
wrote in Word was my Ph.D. thesis, thirty years ago. (It was Word 1.0
for Macintosh.)
> Most folks prefer to use tools to avoid having to write everything
> from scratch. Once you drag a tool into the mix, all bets are
> off (unless you manually peruse the output of that tool)
You obviously haven't used LaTeX in awhile. GUI enthusiasts (of whom I
am not one) can use TeXStudio and have markup in one window and WYSIWYG
in the other. Personally I just use my favourite programmer's editor,
xx. One nice thing about that is that I can just blast away and not
worry about the program doing something stupid. Another is that it
makes version control super easy--I can use
git diff HEAD~1
to see what I did last, for instance.
>
> E.g., FrameMaker produces MIF -- which is just as readable as
> any other markup language. But, I'd be silly to waste my time
> reading it -- or WRITING it!
Well, if you're bad at it, that's a problem just like being bad at any
other useful skill.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe86bv$aqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458265 |
On 5/1/2017 1:10 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 03:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/1/2017 12:46 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2017 12:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2017 8:53 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so
>>>>>>> that's no
>>>>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These might help:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents"
>>>>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Using the Document Inspector"
>>>>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Metadata in MS Office"
>>>>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various
>>>>>> readers:
>>>>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction>
>>>>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and cleaners:
>>>>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>>>>
>>>> Simply because you (nor the previous document's author) didn't opt
>>>> to include any macros to embed "invisible" information in your file(s).
>>>> By way of example(s):
>>>>
>>>> % This is the crappiest piece of hardware we've ever produced!
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> % sdf[dsfg[psrpos]dlvsl;jtpeoirt'lesmk ;vjsdv
>>>> (same as above, but encoded in a manner that isn't explicitly obvious)
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> \end{document}
>>>> This was prepared by MagicGloves v1.234 licensed to LKFOIUSFJHS#6%$#
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
>>>> ....
>>>> \comment{This customer paid us lots of extra money for a feature
>>>> that is already present in the standard product. We'll make a big
>>>> deal about the feature, here, in THIS copy of the manual, to make
>>>> him think he really got his money worth!}
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> \usepackage{comment}
>>>> ....
>>>> \begin{comment}
>>>> This feature doesn't really work as advertised; but, the bozos in
>>>> Marketing wanted it included
>>>> \end{comment}
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> (deliberately exploiting the comment feature)
>>>>
>>>> \usepackage[final]{fixme}
>>>> \fxsetup{layout=footnote, marginclue}
>>>> ....
>>>> \fxnote{We really need to redesign the front end to tamp down the
>>>> noise -- but, no time to do it in this version!}
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> \iffalse
>>>> Kilroy was here -- but found the place to be pathetic and left!
>>>> \fi
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> Given that others can originate documents, unless you want to reverse
>>>> engineer *all* of their content, you can never be sure they (or the tool
>>>> preparing the LaTeX) haven't carefully embedded information in the
>>>> document
>>>> in ways that you're not ambitious enough to uncover. That becomes
>>>> MORE of
>>>> a problem as documents are (dynamically) "synthesized" from their PDL's
>>>>
>>>> Obfuscated LaTeX contest?? :>
>>>>
>>>> \let~\catcode~`x13~`q~`x~`z~`q~`H~`q~`B~`H~`j0~`jA009
>>>> jlet~jlet~Hjpar ~Bjmscount~~jdef~x{q bottlez of beer}
>>>> ~jw{x on the wall}~jt{jadvanceAB-1ATake one down Aand
>>>> pass it around,H}B99~ji{jifnumB}~q{ji=0Nojelsejnumber
>>>> Bjfi}~z{ji>1sjfiA }jloop jifnumB>0 jw, x,Hjtjw.jvskip
>>>> 8ptplus1ptjrepeat Time to buy some more beerjdotsjend
>>>
>>> 1. People who are deliberately stupid like that deserve what they get.
>>> With LaTeX you have to shoot yourself in the foot deliberately, whereas
>>> Office does it for you. Nice automation feature. :(
>>>
>>> 2. Stuff in an \iffalse block doesn't appear anywhere in the output.
>>>
>>> 3. You don't have to reverse engineer anything. If nobody is saying
>>> anything stupid in the LaTeX source, nothing stupid winds up in the PDF.
>>
>> That assumes you saddle yourself with having to WRITE LaTeX source!
>
> I much prefer writing LaTeX source to futzing with menus that change
> completely from release to release.
Then don't upgrade the software! What version of LaTeX are you running?
What version of the various macro packages? Don't *they* change??
> I've been doing it for years--I switched my book MS from WordPerfect 5.1
> for DOS to LaTeX about a dozen years ago. Before that I used Script/VS
> and Bookmaster for papers and stuff. The last significant document I
> wrote in Word was my Ph.D. thesis, thirty years ago. (It was Word 1.0
> for Macintosh.)
And I rode a bicycle to grade school. I no longer have time to *waste*
pedaling a dozen or more miles at a time when i can drive it in a few
minutes.
>> Most folks prefer to use tools to avoid having to write everything
>> from scratch. Once you drag a tool into the mix, all bets are
>> off (unless you manually peruse the output of that tool)
>
> You obviously haven't used LaTeX in awhile. GUI enthusiasts (of whom I
> am not one) can use TeXStudio and have markup in one window and WYSIWYG
> in the other. Personally I just use my favourite programmer's editor,
> xx. One nice thing about that is that I can just blast away and not
> worry about the program doing something stupid. Another is that it
> makes version control super easy--I can use
>
> git diff HEAD~1
>
> to see what I did last, for instance.
>
>> E.g., FrameMaker produces MIF -- which is just as readable as
>> any other markup language. But, I'd be silly to waste my time
>> reading it -- or WRITING it!
>
> Well, if you're bad at it, that's a problem just like being bad at any
> other useful skill.
And, if your good at killing people with a bow and arrow?
A classic problem with technical people is clinging to old tools because
they place continued value on the (typ obsolete) skills that they honed
with them -- instead of moving on to more productive ones.
I can write really clever ASM for certain processors. Or, I can
get a lot of work done (in a HLL/IDE)! :>
I can type a bunch of characters and draw a cubic bezier:
\qbezier(x1, y1)(x2, y2)(x3, y3)
Render it. Then, go back and twiddle them. Rerender. Twiddle
some more. etc. Until I get something that approximates the
curve I desire.
Or, I can use a tool that lets me manipulate control points
graphically and *see* what I am doing WHILE I am doing it.
Which way do you think gets me (or anyone) to their desired
goal quickest?
I can write HTML in ed(1). Then, render it in a browser. Then,
go back and fix my (inevitable) syntax errors and tweak it to
get closer to my goal.
Or, I can let a tool that is designed for that purpose give
me more *direct* control over the results.
Adding a tool almost always increases productivity. But,
opens the door for the *tool* (or its designers) to decide
how to best represent your ideas.
I don't *tell* FrameMaker to put my name (or any author's name)
in my documents. Or the date. But, it does. So, if I don't want
it there, *I* have to take steps to elide it before releasing the
document. This is infinitely easier than writing MIF (its markup
language) directly -- to ensure nothing "unexpected" gets into the
document in the first place.
But, hey, if you like balancing parens/braces and remembering
cryptic abbreviations, go for it! :>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k2uegch5gddq5u2l7rc75o34p1bo3rt472@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458232 |
On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>Not an issue in LaTeX!
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
If I can't be part of the solution, I may as well be part of the
problem.
\documentclass{article}
\immediate\write18{/home/jeffl/bin/evil_script.sh}
\begin{document}
Blah..blah..blah
\end{document}
Compile the Latex source and it runs evil_script.sh, possibly doing
all manner of mean and nasty things.
It's kinda scary that the preferred and most secure software is now
based upon which (hidden) features are missing.
Nroff and Troff will surely make a comeback.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 15:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4eudnb7cGsKPDJrEnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #458250 |
On 05/01/2017 02:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Not an issue in LaTeX!
>> Cheers
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> If I can't be part of the solution, I may as well be part of the
> problem.
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \immediate\write18{/home/jeffl/bin/evil_script.sh}
> \begin{document}
> Blah..blah..blah
> \end{document}
>
> Compile the Latex source and it runs evil_script.sh, possibly doing
> all manner of mean and nasty things.
But the PDF doesn't. As they say in C, *foot = bullet;
>
> It's kinda scary that the preferred and most secure software is now
> based upon which (hidden) features are missing.
>
> Nroff and Troff will surely make a comeback.
>
Not nearly as bad as Word macros!
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ouregcdcdq6gfarlkho4bfb2hpp251prh5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458232 |
On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >>> secret. "John's Computer" neither >> >> These might help: >> >> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" >> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> >> >> "Using the Document Inspector" >> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> >> >> "Metadata in MS Office" >> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> >> >> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various >> readers: >> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> >> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> >> and cleaners: >> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> >> >> >Not an issue in LaTeX! > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs That's a classic (dare I say ancient?) document scripting language, from the teletype/Decwriter days. Like Runoff and Troff and such. I've written a few of those myself. But laziness is a virtue, so I like WYSIWYG things these days. Word is fine if you avoid using 98% of its features. Crimson or Notepad++ are fine for pure text things, but not for data sheets or manuals. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 15:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Wc6dnQq9FYkTDprEnZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #458252 |
On 05/01/2017 02:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither >>> >>> These might help: >>> >>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" >>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> >>> >>> "Using the Document Inspector" >>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> >>> >>> "Metadata in MS Office" >>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> >>> >>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various >>> readers: >>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> >>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> >>> and cleaners: >>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> >>> >>> >> Not an issue in LaTeX! >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > That's a classic (dare I say ancient?) document scripting language, > from the teletype/Decwriter days. Like Runoff and Troff and such. I've > written a few of those myself. But laziness is a virtue, so I like > WYSIWYG things these days. Word is fine if you avoid using 98% of its > features. > > Crimson or Notepad++ are fine for pure text things, but not for data > sheets or manuals. > > Dashing Hunchback wrote a very nice LaTeX macro set based on the memoir document class. It's good for manuals and flyers (see <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01manual> and <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01-product-announcement>). Liking LaTeX is pretty near universal among physicists, I think. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m86fgcd05upb1hk01d5881ob6fioan3nrp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #458264 |
On Mon, 1 May 2017 15:59:10 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 05/01/2017 02:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither >>>> >>>> These might help: >>>> >>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" >>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> >>>> >>>> "Using the Document Inspector" >>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> >>>> >>>> "Metadata in MS Office" >>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> >>>> >>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various >>>> readers: >>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> >>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> >>>> and cleaners: >>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> >>>> >>>> >>> Not an issue in LaTeX! >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> That's a classic (dare I say ancient?) document scripting language, >> from the teletype/Decwriter days. Like Runoff and Troff and such. I've >> written a few of those myself. But laziness is a virtue, so I like >> WYSIWYG things these days. Word is fine if you avoid using 98% of its >> features. >> >> Crimson or Notepad++ are fine for pure text things, but not for data >> sheets or manuals. >> >> >Dashing Hunchback wrote a very nice LaTeX macro set based on the memoir >document class. It's good for manuals and flyers (see ><https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01manual> and ><https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01-product-announcement>). > >Liking LaTeX is pretty near universal among physicists, I think. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs But I have a single employee (out of 25) to which I am both father and boss. The rest would send me to a psychiatric care prison if I tried to get them to use LaTex. Even The Brat might do that. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f4KdnUkByqOFBprEnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #458267 |
On 05/01/2017 04:25 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2017 15:59:10 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 05/01/2017 02:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no >>>>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither >>>>> >>>>> These might help: >>>>> >>>>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" >>>>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> >>>>> >>>>> "Using the Document Inspector" >>>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> >>>>> >>>>> "Metadata in MS Office" >>>>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> >>>>> >>>>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various >>>>> readers: >>>>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> >>>>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> >>>>> and cleaners: >>>>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Not an issue in LaTeX! >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> >>> That's a classic (dare I say ancient?) document scripting language, >>> from the teletype/Decwriter days. Like Runoff and Troff and such. I've >>> written a few of those myself. But laziness is a virtue, so I like >>> WYSIWYG things these days. Word is fine if you avoid using 98% of its >>> features. >>> >>> Crimson or Notepad++ are fine for pure text things, but not for data >>> sheets or manuals. >>> >>> >> Dashing Hunchback wrote a very nice LaTeX macro set based on the memoir >> document class. It's good for manuals and flyers (see >> <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01manual> and >> <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01-product-announcement>). >> >> Liking LaTeX is pretty near universal among physicists, I think. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > But I have a single employee (out of 25) to which I am both father and > boss. The rest would send me to a psychiatric care prison if I tried > to get them to use LaTex. > > Even The Brat might do that. She might anyway. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe86qm$c9o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458267 |
On 5/1/2017 1:25 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> But I have a single employee (out of 25) to which I am both father and
> boss. The rest would send me to a psychiatric care prison if I tried
> to get them to use LaTex.
But that's true of virtually EVERY tool. People cling to what they
know and avoid what they don't. Your job (as employer) is to decide
how to get the best quality "product" from your employees at the
most economical price (cost).
I worked at a place many years ago that was perpetually engaged in
a "hex vs octal" debate. As if COMMITTING TO MEMORY "0377" is
somehow "better" than remembering "0xFF".
Because one group "thought" in terms of octal ("split octal"...
377 377 is 0xFFFF) while the other in terms of hexadecimal.
Despite the fact that the tools of the day had already moved
to *symbolic* references (what does 0xFF *represent*?)
As a contractor, I often had little say over what tools a
client chose to use. Silly to go on a reeducation campaign
with EACH client to bring them up to whatever *I* considered
"best" (for their needs). Instead, I'd factor in the cost
of learning/adapting to their toolchain (as well as their
business practices) in my estimate (and desire!) for their job.
> Even The Brat might do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <100eba36-644c-416d-acef-f88e5bc28e92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458264 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:59:18 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 05/01/2017 02:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > >> On 05/01/2017 12:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:43:45 -0700, John Larkin > >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> My name is on the title page of the manuals that I write, so that's no > >>>> secret. "John's Computer" neither > >>> > >>> These might help: > >>> > >>> "Remove hidden data and personal information from Office documents" > >>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-from-Office-documents-c2499d69-413c-469b-ace3-cf7e31a85953> > >>> > >>> "Using the Document Inspector" > >>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff862071.aspx> > >>> > >>> "Metadata in MS Office" > >>> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/metadata_in_ms.html> > >>> > >>> Much of this kind of hidden metadata can be exposed using various > >>> readers: > >>> <http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Document_Metadata_Extraction> > >>> <https://www.meridiandiscovery.com/articles/word-last-10-authors-metadata-computer-forensics/> > >>> and cleaners: > >>> <http://www.brightfort.com/docscrubber.html> > >>> > >>> > >> Not an issue in LaTeX! > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Phil Hobbs > > > > That's a classic (dare I say ancient?) document scripting language, > > from the teletype/Decwriter days. Like Runoff and Troff and such. I've > > written a few of those myself. But laziness is a virtue, so I like > > WYSIWYG things these days. Word is fine if you avoid using 98% of its > > features. > > > > Crimson or Notepad++ are fine for pure text things, but not for data > > sheets or manuals. > > > > > Dashing Hunchback wrote a very nice LaTeX macro set based on the memoir > document class. It's good for manuals and flyers (see > <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01manual> and > <https://www.hobbs-eo.com/ql01-product-announcement>). > > Liking LaTeX is pretty near universal among physicists, I think. I had to use Latex, never enough to learn all the /f (or whatever the formatting string is) commands, so I never liked it. (At some point I knew a lot of word perfect short cuts.) My biggest bitch with Word (or maybe it's Visio) is that the Greek font I used 'went away' at some point, and there are all these docs with the ohms symbol (Omega), printed as a capital W. I want stability in software. George H. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > -- > Dr Philip C D Hobbs > Principal Consultant > ElectroOptical Innovations LLC > Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics > > 160 North State Road #203 > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 > > hobbs at electrooptical dot net > http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web