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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: geekciro at gmail.com (Ciro Spider-Man)
Subject: M$ - so what should they do?

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:04:37 +1200, Stuart Fox (DSL AK)
<stuartf@...acom.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 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?
> 

I don't use it to create scripts, but I do use it. Frequently use the
filehandles on unix boxen, too, for that matter. Who needs a
fullscreen editor? ;)