Jeff Kell <jeff-kellat_private> replied to http-equivat_private: [I thought I replied to "http-equiv"'s message earlier, but on checking I sent it direct, not to the lists...] > > Just tested something here. Typically IE can or will open files > > depending what the contents are regardless of the extension that it > > is: <html> tag in a gif or some other file type should or can be > > rendered by IE for what the contents are, not the extension. > > The Windows run function (IE viewer) ignores the extension (sort of) if > the file is in a portable OLE-type format. For example, go in Word and > create "foo.doc". Exit and rename "foo.doc" to "foo.fubar". Double > click "foo.fubar" and Word opens up. Same for Excel and other things. > > If the extension is known, it appears to try and use it. If not, it > will look for OLE-extensions and launch what matches. It's the other way around -- if a file's extension is not registered on the system trying to "run" (or "open") the file, depending on how it is being "opened", some further checks than just "what is registered to handle this extension" are made. One of those checks determines whether the file is apparently internally an OLE2 file, and if so the application registered to handle the CLSID of the root directory entry in the OLE2 file is directed to open the file. If that CLSID is also not registered then the usual "Open With..." dialog appears. Another file type tested for in this process is the DOS ("MZ") EXE format, which can be run "as normal", depending on the "open" method used, depsite having been renamed to a non-EXE extension. Thus, "http-equiv"'s discovery that a non-extensioned EXE could be launched through one of these code execution holes is not all that surprising... -- Nick FitzGerald Computer Virus Consulting Ltd. Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 09:05:12 PDT