On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> My standalone consists of several stacks. Some of the stacks change, so I
> save them out as external stacks from the standalone, using this script:
>
> hide stack "dirTemplate"
> clone stack "dirTemplate"
> set the name of it to "iDirectory"
> set the loc of stack "iDirectory" to 308,463
> save stack "iDirectory" as theStackFile
> close stack "dirTemplate"
> hide stack "prefsTemplate2"
> clone stack "prefsTemplate2"
> set the name of it to "prefsTemplate"
> set the mainstack of stack "prefsTemplate" to "iDirectory"
> close stack "prefsTemplate2"
> hide stack "iDirectory Menu Bar Template2"
> clone stack "iDirectory Menu Bar Template2"
> set the name of it to "iDirectory Menu Bar Template"
> set the mainstack of stack "iDirectory Menu Bar Template" to "iDirectory"
> close stack "iDirectory Menu Bar Template2"
> go stack theStackFile
> show stack "iDirectory"
> save stack "iDirectory"
>
> Since I'm distributing the standalone, I've put passwords on all the
> stacks involved. This works fine on the Mac, but under Windows NT 4, I'm
> getting an error in the execution of this script that causes Windows to
> shut down my standalone. The standalone works fine without the password.
>
> Is it not possible (under Windows) to clone, set the location of, name,
> etc. a password-protected stack?
>
> If so, do I password the stack, and set the passkey before executing the
> above, then re-password everything after?
This is a bug. It actually should affect the MacOS version too, but
that OS lacks protected memory, so who knows what damage you're doing
to it (can you say "corrupted file system"? I thought you could ;-)
The problem is cloning a password protected stack: It doesn't work
right. Your best bet is to use the file system to make the copy
(e.g., use 'put url "binfile:somefile" into url "binfile:someotherfile"').
You could also set the passkey, then set the password to empty, clone,
rename, and then set new passwords on the new and old stacks. This
one has already been fixed for 2.3.1.
> And while we're on the subject, is the encryption MC uses when you
> password a stack keylength-dependent? In other words, is the encryption
> iteself more secure with a longer password (aside from the password being
> harder to guess)?
In theory, yes. But you get diminishing returns with strings longer
than about 6 characters, so I there's no reason to go overboard here.
Regards,
Scott
> Thanks
>
> gc
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
