Re: Win2K/NTFS messes file creation time/date

From: Ken Brown (k.brownat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 04:47:09 PDT

  • Next message: Matias Sedalo: "Re: suid xman 3.1.6 overflows"

    Gerald Carter wrote:
    > 
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Acryl wrote:
    > 
    > > Again the 3 files were created, but the Creation time/date was set
    > > wrong, namely it was set to the very first creation time ( before I
    > > deleted them by hand ). Any following runs of the program produced the
    > > same results.
    > 
    > This is known behavior.  There is a window during which the "sticky"
    > behavior will occur. In fact, certain MS apps (e.g. Word) rely upon this
    > behavior.
    
    Known to who? Is it documented anywhere? 
    
    The only documentation the vast majority of users have on NTFS is the
    online help that comes with windows. The obvious place that most people
    would look for this is the context-specific help on the file properties
    sheet accessed from Explorer, and all that says is "Displays the date
    and time on which the file or folder was created". It does not say "time
    on which the file, or another one with a similar name, was created".  If
    it did then maybe we could call it "well-known" behaviour.
    
    Anyone involved in technical support or trouble shooting is likely to
    have the MS technet documentation. On my CD, chapter 17 of the "Windows
    2000 Professional System Configuration and Management", on file systems,
    has a section on NTFS file attributes, which look like  an obvious place
    to start. Also a section on the Change log. But there is no indication
    that "created" means anything different on NTFS than it did on FAT. I
    haven't found it in 3 or 4 other likely looking documents.
    
    As it is, all sorts of questions follow from it. What is the window?
    Where does NTFS store the information while the old file doesn't exist?
    (Is it the change journal? It isn't mentioned.) What happens to Word if
    someone accidentally or deliberately breaks the mechanism?   
    
    The behaviour is easy to replicate as described, and I can also make it
    happen from the command line without bothering with all that mouse
    clicking. It sure looks like a bug or a vulnerability to me.
    
    Ken Brown
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 16 2001 - 09:06:29 PDT