Re: .com

From: Nexus (nexusat_private-way.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 09:30:20 PDT

  • Next message: Ed Lopez: "RE: limewire cookie (among others) disclosure vuln"

    Possibly if the level of stupidity were high enough that attachments are
    blindly clicked on  ;-)
    Explorer will still use the icon for an com file which may be noticed, the
    MZ tag in the exe will still flag is as an executable for anything what is
    watching (AV/Content Filtering/Sandboxing) since they are usually(;-) smart
    enough to look at the file header, not the extension.   I know that a true
    old-fashioned .COM file has no such header as the ORG is set at 0x100, hence
    no real loader as it doesn't have to adjust the segements, but chances of
    getting that to run on a Win32 system ?
    By clients I am assuming that you mean email clients and the like, or do you
    mean people ?
    Your attachment has zero length and so does nothing, not quite sure what you
    are saying....
    Could you explain a bit more ?
    
    Cheers.
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Pauli Ojanperä" <pasaojanat_private>
    To: <vuln-devat_private>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 8:10 AM
    Subject: .com
    
    
    > dunno if this has already occurred in people's mind but
    > as there is the nice similarity between the ancient .com
    > executable file extension and the tld .com ignorant
    > clients could be fooled by sending executables that
    > are named after popular .com www-sites. clear enough?-)
    >
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 10:58:35 PDT