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.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ