Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Users Warned Over Filename Security Risk
nandemoari writes "Would-be Windows 7 users have been warned to change a default setting which could leave them vulnerable to attack via bogus files. As a result, Microsoft is taking flak for failing to correct a problem found in previous editions of Windows.
The issue involves the way Windows Explorer displays filenames.
In all editions of Windows after Windows 98, the default setting hides the filename extension (which identifies what type of file it is). This means that a Word file titled 'partyinvite.doc' will show up in Windows Explorer as simply 'partyinvite'. The only exception to this rule is if Windows does not recognize the file type.
The reason for this setting is that it makes for a less cluttered look and avoids filling the screen with redundant detail. However, a flaw in the way it works leaves it liable to exploitation by hackers. They can take an executable file (which can do much more damage to a computer when opened) and disguise it by calling it 'partyinvite.doc.exe.'"
How can this possibly be? I thought this was the most secure OS on the planet.
it shouldn't be made executable by the default umask though, so when you go to click on it it'll just try to associate an application with the .exe extension.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
This is a non-issue. With all of the vulnerabilities in applications that think they are a programming interface (like Acrobat), EXE's might actually be safer to open.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Most people wouldn't change their behaviour even if the did see the file extension.
Email programs such as Outlook block .exe attachments, and Executables downloaded using IE display a stern warning before execution.
Changing this wouldn't have helped anyone.
And associating this with Windows 7 is mostly FUD, jumping on the bandwagon just because you don't like it.
Welcome to Windows 95?!
Filename extensions have been hidden by default for many years now, in all shipping versions of Windows. And they've been making it easy for malware authors to fool users for just as long.
It was an insanely stupid policy on MS's part, and it borders on negligence that they're still doing it.
You can easily add the Word icon to your malware, and this will fool users easily.
OSX hides extensions, too, and what's arguably worse, OSX allows you to arbitrarily replace the icon of any file, thereby allowing you to disguise files more easily. Don't some Linux DEs do the same thing?
It's sort of unfortunate that we rely on filename extensions to identify file type at all. Users have a tendency to accidentally remove extensions when they're renaming if you don't hide them. But then if you hide them, then users are missing the single most important cue as to what file-type a file is.
The filename should not contain any metadata. The date is not included in the filename, so why is the filetype in there?
You want a solution? How about this: Windows should only hide file extensions for files that don't use custom icons
How about we never hide the extension for any reason? If you're worried about clutter, and redundant information on screen, ditch the icons. The extension is all of 3 bytes, and it's far, far easier to read 3 letters than it is to squint at the icon and guess what it's supposed to be.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How can this possibly be?
Your question actually has a face value in excess of it's sarcasm content. How did we get here?
I'm stating common knowledge but it's worth reflection since it paints a large picture. In the begining there was the file and the file was just a marked off stretch of physically contiguous bytes on a tape or drum. it had no internal structure. Have a directory that associated names with files regions was something you had to implement yourself. The filesystems formalized this to having names, hierarchies, and even non-contiguous allocation tables for blocks.
Since that time every new file system has tried to codify the notion of metadata. And in this land of babble, the only common durable hiding place for meta data has turned out to be the filename itself.
Look at HFS for example as a valiant effort in defining meta data like "kind" and "creator", and defining different kinds of forks some of which had uniform storage protocols for resource, so that programs other than the creator could inspect and edit them. And boy what a snarl that has perpertually been. While these still exist, apple has punted and gone to just using file structures and a specially named file (plists) to hold meta data in a quasi XML format.
And so here we are 30 years later and were still putting suffixes on our files just like back in the days of DEC and Prime and even before.
And think about perhaps the biggest failure of the Longhorn Debacle. The promise of a revolutionary new filesystem that put meta data and it's inspection first. An entirely relational storage system underneath that only mimmiced the hierachical system for legacy purposes.
Deleted from Longhorn, promised again for vista, and then gone. Promised for windows 7 then gone.
It's bizzare. Everyone knows what the problem is. HFS was much maligned precisely because it was more complex than suffixes but it's what we really needed back in 1984. and all the others all made so much sense too.
Why are suffixes so enduring? How can this be?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't what else ... makes no sense at all.
Ahh.... Irony at its best... ;-)
The Vista file manager does that too.
Upon reading this, I wondered whether MacOS X suffered the same issue, so I decided to test. I disabled the showing of all extensions (Finder preferences), duplicated Text Edit, so it appeared as "TextEdit 2" and then edited the visible name to "TextEdit 2.doc". The result was displaying itself as "TextEdit 2.doc.app". For other file types, such as a PDF doing the same thing results in being asked if you are sure you want to change the filename extension, though renaming from the Terminal a PDF from "toto.pdf" to "toto.doc.pdf" resulted in the same visual behaviour as the one observed for the application. Its an interesting solution to the problem, since basically if the file has multiple extensions they are all shown.
The issue described in the post has already caused me issues in the past on Windows XP, on a developer's machine, where extensions were not shown by default. Imagine an Apache conf folder that contains:
http.conf
http.conf.bak
The first one appears as 'http' and the second one as 'httpd.conf'. I didn't hit me straight away that the wrong file was being edited.
Does anyone know how Linux handles this in the various GUI file managers?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
F-Secure points out that .PIF files will have their extension hidden even if you change the display option.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.