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

Message-ID: <200406212249.i5LMntB05582@pop-3.dnv.wideopenwest.com>
From: mvp at joeware.net (joe)
Subject: M$ - so what should they do?

I am not sure I agree with the first thing. Actually I think it helps in
that it is easier for people to know something is executable veruss having
to look at additional attributes to see if something is executable. 

I would argue against many of the other associations that exist however such
as DOC and ZIP and such. However that doesn't make them executable, it just
means that something will read them and execute them when fired. 

What security benefit do you see for the second thing?

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Ediger
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:31 PM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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.