Re: Entourage
Re: Entourage
- Subject: Re: Entourage
- From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:20:07 -0500
- Thread-topic: Entourage
On 4/6/07 12:57 PM, "Stockly, Ed" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>> So, if Macs are used in an open, collaborative environment, then
>>> Entourage is probably not the email application we should be using.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on "open, collaborative environment"?
>>
>
> Sure, People share macs, work on the same kinds of tasks at different times
> of day, and need to access the many of the same files and applications.
> Multiple accounts are two cumbersome, particularly for mostly PC users who
> use macs for a limited number of tasks.
>
> If it were up to me, everyone would use multiple accounts, but it's not to
> me
Then you are saying that individual security on the macs is not a worry. The
login is the primary mode of general security on the Mac. Unless you make
everything require a password, then with a shared login, you effectively
have no security in that account.
>
>> If you have a single Mac OS X user account you want multiple people
>> to be able to share, then don't put anything in that account that
>> shouldn't be shared.
>
> We didn't have this problem with Outlook. In that case, if you didn't enter
> a correct password the application wouldn't let you work offline. That may
> have been a hack, and that may not have been a "secure" solution, but only
> gave the illusion of security. (The local outlook files may have been
> accessible to someone who knew what they were doing.)
Outlook was never originally designed to work offline, and it was designed
for an OS that had almost no concept of local security.
>
> So I'm going to take two approaches to blocking access to Entourage emails
> without a password, one that provides the same level of an "illusion of
> security" that outlook did, and a more complex solution that will provide
> actual security.
>
> Here's the solutions:
>
> Illusion of Security
> Lock,Unlock: In the doc I'll have an appleScript applet that will "lock"
> entourage. It will simply block read/write access to the folder containing
> the Entourage database. When this happens Entourage generates a File may be
> corrupt error and quits.
> The same applet would unlock Entourage and would require a password.
>
> Actual Security:
>
> Here the plan is to use the same interface (an applet in the dock) but to
> secure Entourage it will move the database file into a folder that requires
> a root password for access and move a "dummy" database/rules file into its
> place.
>
> The first solution will be fairly simple and use mostly plain vanilla
> applescript.
>
> The second solution will require "french vanilla" applescript (shell
> scripting, maybe use of a couple common third-party osaxen).
>
> What would be really cool would be if Entourage could launch the scripts
> itself when it launches or quits, but that would require a level of
> attachability and tinkerability that's not there, right?
Entourage is attachable, that has nothing to do with launching startup
scripts.
Why not just keep everything E'rage needs to use on the server, and lock the
keychain. Depending on how big your database gets, what you are talking
about will require a non-trivial amount of time. You will also have to lock
out spotlight and sync services access for E'rage, along with any use of the
project center.
Unix is not Windows, it does things differently. What you are trying to do,
while well-intentioned, is going, not may, but will bite you in the ass in
short order not just from a security POV, but from a usability POV.
--
Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice
which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden