Page MenuHome

Path contained within .blend is may be too verbose
Closed, ArchivedPublic


System Information
Linux (Intel graphics)
The nature of the bug is independent of the issue reporting.

Blender Version
Tested on 2.75

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

  1. Open blender
  2. Save the file (default cube is fine)
  3. Run "strings" on the resulting .blend file.
  4. Notice it shows full path to the .blend file and also paths from histories.

The implication of this issue is that this may pose privacy concerns in some cases when .blend file is distributed.
Perhaps, it is not so much of concerns in general usage, but could be an issue if the particular .blend file is output from production machines in a company, which can leak sensitive project names and other information.

Perhaps there is usefulness in retaining histories within the .blend file, however, it might be great to have an setting that inhibits inclusion of private information, as well as an option on the save dialog to strip such information.

Event Timeline

Hideki Saito (integer) raised the priority of this task from to 90.
Hideki Saito (integer) updated the task description. (Show Details)
Hideki Saito (integer) edited a custom field.

Please note, I did not do a comprehensive analysis of strings in the file. (There are a lot of strings included in a file.) But I felt this one's least expected.

Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) changed the task status from Unknown Status to Archived.Jul 27 2015, 3:54 AM

The Blend file writes Blender structures as they're stored in memory,
So even if this one issue were resolved - there are many places where setting a relative path for example - will leave part of the absolute path after the trailing null terminator - for example.

If this were as simple as changing file writing in a few places, it may be worth resolving.
But I'm afraid this kind of file-format hygiene just isn't supported, and would require much bigger changes to file writing code.

Currently we don't consider it a bug.

"Currently we don't consider it a bug."

While I agree with that, I think the point raised by the OP "but could be an issue if the particular .blend file is output from production machines in a company, which can leak sensitive project names and other information." could be a mission critical in getting Blender used by studios.

In a matter of fact, this is where Ton and several others sit down, talk clearly, and release another minor version of current release.

It may not be a bug, but if obviously a flawed design (IMHO) and is a very critical thing.

If people or companies are concerned, it will be quite simple to make a .blend anonimizer.
We can mark it as a todo item, and wait for the first case of someone who needs it. A big studio I mean.

And to be honest, I have to see the first big studio that shares their files on public forums.

"And to be honest, I have to see the first big studio that shares their files on public forums."

Hi Ton, it doesn't have to be public forum, but between contractors / vendors.

Imagine Studio A might hire VFX House Z to do a scene. But VFX House Z might also do special effect for Studio B.

You (Studio A) may doesn't want VFX House Z to share with Studio B what movies you have in the pipeline. Getting movies out earlier is enough to steal profit / thunder.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

In my experience with production files from big VFX studios, such absolute paths revealing names of projects or characters are everywhere and no one is protecting against that. In fact relative paths seem to be quite rare and a lot of VFX software isn't capable of handling relative paths as well as Blender does.

What studios will often do is use code names or acronyms for the project directory, I don't know if that's a protection strategy or just because the name hasn't been decided yet or it's too long to type.

Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) lowered the priority of this task from 90 to 50.Jul 28 2015, 1:21 AM

So, I only use Blender for a hobby, as I'm an engineer by trade - but I wanted to say that any serious engineering firm that is going to share any kind of technical document(s) with anyone else, will have that person or organization sign an NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) before handing anything over. At that point, it doesn't matter if you know anything of the internal path names, etc. If that firm leaks any of that information, they are now liable.

I would imagine any large studios would work the same way - if they have something secret they need to share, wouldn't they force everyone involved to sign NDAs? I mean, I had to sign one just to interview at my current job, then I had to sign another one when I got the offer.

I would consider this a non-issue.