David Conrad wrote:
> People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that have the
> same strings as popular file extensions will be a 'security disaster'
Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom and desire to not abide by standards
it has not set decided that instead of relying on the Mime
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:08:43AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> >Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file
> >access via
> >Explorer with internet access...
>
> I gather you're implying MS Windows does this?
Start->Run.
Type in the full filename of a binary on your path
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I could maybe see a problem with ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1"
> due to the risk of someone registering "127.0.0.1"
RFC 1123 section 2.1 says TLDs can't be purely numeric.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY
> People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that
> have the same strings as popular file extensions will be a
> 'security disaster', but I've yet to see an explanation of
> the potential exploits. I could maybe see a problem with
> ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1" due to the
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:43 PM, James Hess wrote:
Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but
this is
I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL",
".EXE", ".TXT"
Or other domains that look like filenames.
Like .INFO, .PL, .SH, and, of course, .COM?
5 matches
Mail list logo
