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: <20040715044056.GB1973@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:40:56 -0700
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: "Jordan Cole \(stilist\)" <stilist@...il.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll

> 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.

Well, the whole idea of relying on part of a file's name to determine
how it is opened is just plain stupid, IMHO.  If I took the name plate
off of a ford, and stuck it on my nissan, would my mechanic put ford
parts into it when I took it in for repair?

(Yeah, I know, I used the tired-old automobile analogy, but I am too
tired right now to come up with something better.)

tim

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