Issue 50169 - respect "Trusted sources" at all security levels
Summary: respect "Trusted sources" at all security levels
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: requirements
QA Contact: issues@framework
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-06-01 12:23 UTC by Frank Schönheit
Modified: 2006-08-16 12:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Frank Schönheit 2005-06-01 12:23:37 UTC
Currently, you can configure different security levels in
"Tools|Options|Security|Macro Security", affecting which documents from which
sources are allowed to run embedded macros.

Ignoring signed documents for the moment, there are three levels:
- only execute macros from trusted sources
- manually confirm macros embedded in documents
- execute all macros

Additionally, there's a list of trusted sources (e.g. file locations) which can
be configured by the user.

Unfortunately, this list is only respected at the highest security level. This
means that it's not possible to
- execute macros from trusted sources without confirmation
  AND
  confirm all other macros

I claim that users often have specific file locations where they collect trusted
documents (for example: ~/documents/specifications), which they want to execute
without being asked, but still want to have the possibility to execute macros in
other documents with confirmation.
This is not possible anymore today. It was possible in OpenOffice.org 1.x, and
got lost with the re-design of the security concept.

Thus I suggest to respect the "Trusted sources" list on all security levels, not
only on the highest.
Comment 1 Frank Schönheit 2006-08-16 12:48:53 UTC
Funny. It seems the behaviour changed, so that now (as of 680m181), "Trusted
sources" is in fact respected for all security levels. In 2.0, this was not the
case. In 2.0.1, it is.

Issue 44521 claims that it always worked as requested, but was described
wrongly. However, trying it in 2.0 reveals that it did *not* work as requested here.

Anyway, all is fine now ...
Comment 2 Frank Schönheit 2006-08-16 12:49:05 UTC
closing