Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll
From: "Jordan Cole (stilist)" <stilist () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:58:11 -0400
Why did MS make ".EXE files renamed as .PIF" execute "properly"? Aside from "because we can", I'd not be at all surprised if it was on some internal "stupid user tricks we should eliminate support calls for" list.
Hm... who really knows why MS does a lot of the things they do? I'd guess that the reason it works is more because of they way Windows handles executables or something... considering that .pifs aren't commonly seen these days, and the fact that most people wouldn't think to switch the extension. Then again... people can be marvelously stupid. Don't give the end user any credit of intelligence, and you'll probably end up about right. -- [stlst] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Thor Larholm (Jul 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll vesselen.mironov (Jul 14)
- RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Paul Szabo (Jul 14)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Jordan Cole (stilist) (Jul 14)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Nick FitzGerald (Jul 14)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Jordan Cole (stilist) (Jul 14)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Tim (Jul 14)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Curt Purdy (Jul 15)
- Re: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Jordan Cole (stilist) (Jul 14)
- RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov (Jul 16)
- RE: [ok] RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Curt Purdy (Jul 16)