bugtraq - Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <10598937040714205851fe97ec@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:58:11 -0400
From: "Jordan Cole (stilist)" <stilist@...il.com>
To: nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll

> Why did MS make ".EXE files renamed as .PIF" execute "properly"?  Aside
> from "because we can", I'd not be at all surprised if it was on some
> internal "stupid user tricks we should eliminate support calls for"
> list.

Hm... who really knows why MS does a lot of the things they do? I'd
guess that the reason it works is more because of they way Windows
handles executables or something... considering that .pifs aren't
commonly seen these days, and the fact that most people wouldn't think
to switch the extension. Then again... people can be marvelously
stupid. Don't give the end user any credit of intelligence, and you'll
probably end up about right.

-- 

[stlst]

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html