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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Ediger Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
