full-disclosure - M$ - so what should they do?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A54506325BF6C74ABFBB7434F71661CFACB3F7@dnzakex1.datacom.co.nz>
From: StuartF at datacom.co.nz (Stuart Fox (DSL AK))
Subject: M$ - so what should they do?

> 
> How about changing the ".exe" convention?  Making a file 
> executable by it's "extension" probably causes a lot of 
> opportunities for problems, doesn't it?
> 
> Also, the magic file names, like "CON" and "AUX" should go away.
> 

No way!  Am I the only person who still uses "copy con filename.txt" to
create scripts and such at the command line?  Please tell me I'm not?