Re: Running program files on XP with non-executable extension?
From: Roger Wilco (yesman_at_yourservice.invalid)
Date: 11/24/05
- Next message: Galen: "Re: Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Previous message: karl levinson, mvp: "Re: Zero-day IE exploit..."
- In reply to: Phil Nospam: "Re: Running program files on XP with non-executable extension?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:03:07 -0500
"Phil Nospam" <philnospam@dontwantnospam.com> wrote in message
news:DMSgf.4045$xD5.1758986@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman@yourservice.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11o4tdmbuchf516@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Solly" <solly@by.co.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1dec0bfc778e4c399897c6@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >
> > >
> > > Windows 98 SE
> > > Word 2000
> > >
> > > Will start up word and load a document regardless of file
> > > extension.
> > >
> > > Renaming it to book.xyz still opens it.
> > >
> > > What this shows ia the parser must be looking not just
> > > at the file name but inside the file content.
> >
> > Could be that to support OLE the OS must have this ability - they
should
> > have unregistered extensions (and no extension) default to give the
> > "open with" dialog box instead of just invoking Word based on the
file.
> > You can still edit the registry to do this, but I don't know the
> > particulars of how to do so.
> >
> > > just one more reason not to trust any microsoft software.
> >
> > To me, the whole idea of association by extension is wrong.
Associations
> > really should be by actual filetype (what you are complaining about)
and
> > the associations by extension kept to a minimum.
> >
> > > I wonder what other applications do this.
> >
> > You could experiment with other OLE(2?) enabled applications..
> >
> > > If you cant tell how your software behaves you can never
> > > have a secure system no matter what you do with fire walls.
> >
> > Absolutely, and installing and running additional software on the
> > machine is not the right approach to increasing security.
> >
>
> Interesting...I tried this and a couple other experiments and found
some
> interesting results:
>
> 1) Double-clicking on the file on the desktop (instead of opening it
inside
> of Word) does cause the pop-up box asking what program to use to open
the
> file.
That is a GOOD thing. :) All unregistered extensions, including no
extension, should prompt a dialog to ask the user.
> 2) Tried to open a shortcut on the desktop (from inside Word) to
WinZip and
> what appeared looks like a 208 page document of code (not very
readable,
> just a lot of gobbledygook like "fÄj$høFLV<uVjèõ").
A shortcut to a text document may show the text in notpad when called
from notepad, but if you use DOS (and the EDIT program) you will see the
real shortcut file's "gobbledygook" and its target text file mentioned
within. Notepad would probably load the target.
> 3) Tried to open an actual program executable (an EXE file) and once
again
> saw a bunch of code.
As you would expect, I expect. :))
> Apparently Word tries to open each and every file regardless of the
type
> (tested this with Word 2000 on Win2000 system).
Many programs will, but some will warn that "this is not a valid picture
file" or some such thing if opening an exe in a graphics viewer. Most
editing programs will do the best they can to render the gobbledygook.
- Next message: Galen: "Re: Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Previous message: karl levinson, mvp: "Re: Zero-day IE exploit..."
- In reply to: Phil Nospam: "Re: Running program files on XP with non-executable extension?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
