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"
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.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Thor Larholm (Jul 15)
RE: RE: Unchecked buffer in mstask.dll Polazzo Justin (Jul 25)