Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.internet.services.video.youtube > #369 > unrolled thread

Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort?

Back to article view | Back to comp.internet.services.video.youtube

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-28 18:18 +0100
    Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-28 19:10 +0100
      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-28 22:18 +0200
        Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 01:37 +0100
          Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 09:10 +0200
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 18:46 +0100
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-29 13:58 -0400
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 20:21 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-29 15:20 -0400
                  Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 21:47 +0200
                    Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 22:38 +0100
                      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 08:57 +0200
                    Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:02 -0400
                      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:54 +0200
                    Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-07-30 14:24 +0100
                      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:55 -0400
                      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-30 13:44 -0400
                        Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:33 -0400
          Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 10:03 +0200
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 10:15 +0200
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 22:51 +0100
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:42 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 10:02 -0400
                  Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 17:04 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-30 21:49 +0100
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-30 18:15 +0000
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:37 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#382

On 2025/7/29 9:3:25, R.Wieser wrote:
> J.P. ,
> 
>>>>> I wasn't trying to add a _specific_ new type (such as .css); I was
>>>>> wondering if there was any way to add a _generic_ "new file" to
>>>>> the list (of things it can create).
> 
> I could not drop the issue, and googled for how it could/would work on XP. 
> The first result was this one :
> 
> https://superuser.com/questions/1632295/creating-a-file-with-no-extension-with-right-click-on-windows-10
> 
> :-)
> 
> The whole "trick" seems to be to press ctrl-A to select the whole filename.
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 
> 
That method - running the file through a text editor so you can use
quote marks when saving - could corrupt some non-text files. The better
method is to ensure "show extensions [even] for known filetypes" is
selected, then you can edit including the extensions without running the
files through anything.

That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course some of it [television] is bad. But some of everything is bad
- books, music, family ... - Melvyn Bragg, RT 2017/7/1-7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385

J.P. ,

>> https://superuser.com/questions/1632295/creating-a-file-with-no-extension-with-right-click-on-windows-10
>>
>> The whole "trick" seems to be to press ctrl-A to select the whole 
>> filename.
>
> That method - running the file through a text editor so you can use
> quote marks when saving

Thats not what I tried to suggest.

You mentioned that, when creating a new document, you could edits the 
filename itself, but not the extension.  At that moment try pressing ctrl-A 
and see if that results in the extension also getting selected for editing.

... but reading on I think I made an assumption which has made a fool outof 
me :

> The better method is to ensure "show extensions [even] for known 
> filetypes"
> is selected, then you can edit including the extensions without running 
> the
> files through anything.

I /assumed/ that you saw, after creating a new document, something like 
"[filename].ext", with only the part beween the "[" and "]" being editable. 
Which, from my POV, didn't seem too strange, as most people will want to 
keep the extension when changing the filename.

The ctrl-a "trick" was, I assumed, to change the above into "[filename.ext]" 
(making the full filename editable).

But yes, its quite possible that me having changed the OS configuration when 
I installed it to always show extensions just /might/ have something to do 
with me always seeing and being able to edit the full filename. <whistle>

> That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
> since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.

I do not agree with you there.

Most users are just that, *users*.  They know which icon they need to click 
on their desktop, but often no more than that.   They really need to be 
protected against their own absense of knowledge (the same reason for why 
certain OS related files are hidden).  Making sure that they can change a 
filename but not inadvertedly throw the extension away (after which the icon 
changes and they cannot find the file back and/or double-click it to open 
it) is one of those protections.

Remember all those stories about users which tried to "clean up" their 
'puters by throwing all files away they did not recognise - and than 
complained that their 'puter would not start anymore ?  Yeah
that happens when you "clean up" the OS folder that way.  :-)

But for "power"-users ?   Certainly.  But they are knowledgable enough to 
disable such hand-holding protections in the configuration just after having 
installed the OS.   As yours truly has done, and absolutily forgotten about. 
:-|

As for the "black hat" example you've given ?   AFAIK the OS tries to warn 
you with a popup when you try to start downloaded executables.  What does 
the run-of-the-mill user ?   Figure out which choice makes the popup go away 
and than blindly apply it, without even reading what it tries to tell them 
(yeah, I have been shoulder-surfing a number of such users, just to figure 
out what went "wrong" on their machine - a popup comes up and within half a 
second its been clicked away). :-\

As such I expect one of the future Windows versions to have a default 
configuration that prohibits the user from running any executable (of any 
kind) that has somehow been copied into it (downloaded, thumbdrive, etc).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389

On Wed, 7/30/2025 3:42 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

> But yes, its quite possible that me having changed the OS configuration when 
> I installed it to always show extensions just /might/ have something to do 
> with me always seeing and being able to edit the full filename. <whistle>

Maybe we should take a poll and see how many people leave that
blasted "hide the extension" setting, when installing Windows.

That's one of the first things you "fix" after installation.

You cannot safely or efficiently run with the default setting.
The first example, is what you find with the Hide The Extension in File Explorer Options.

      jugofwine   (some little icon you can't make out)
      jugofwine   (some little icon which is not the same as the other one)

      versus after the user corrects that setting

      jugofwine.txt
      jugofwine.jpg

When you can't make out the icon, the extension adds the distinction required.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390

Paul,

> You cannot safely or efficiently run with the default setting.

I agree with the first, and it depends to the second.

>      jugofwine   (some little icon you can't make out)
...
>      jugofwine.txt

>      jugofwine   (some little icon which is not the same as the other one)
...
>      jugofwine.jpg

On my XP machine both show quite recognisable icons in most views.  Enough 
of a distinction not to mix them up.

But you are ofcourse aware that its /the users fault/ for having given them 
both the same names.  They should have been wiser than that (yes, the same 
user who dismisses warnings without reading them) :-p

> When you can't make out the icon, the extension adds the distinction 
> required.

True.  Or just do what the comon user does : double-click it and see what 
happens.  If what happens is not what is needed just close ... the whatever 
and double-click the other one. :-)

Though one rather nasty drawback of not displaying the extension is that an 
executable can be given any icon a malware writer desires. Including the one 
indicating a picture.  Double-click that "picture" and you're f*cked.  :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393

On 2025/7/30 8:42:3, R.Wieser wrote:
> J.P. ,
> 
>>> https://superuser.com/questions/1632295/creating-a-file-with-no-extension-with-right-click-on-windows-10
>>>
>>> The whole "trick" seems to be to press ctrl-A to select the whole 
>>> filename.
>>
>> That method - running the file through a text editor so you can use
>> quote marks when saving
> 
> Thats not what I tried to suggest.

No, not you, but one of the people in the discussion someone posted a
link to suggested that method.

> 
> You mentioned that, when creating a new document, you could edits the 
> filename itself, but not the extension.  At that moment try pressing ctrl-A 
> and see if that results in the extension also getting selected for editing.

If I did say that, it's not what I _meant_ to say. What I _meant_ to say
is that, by default or after you've added a few bits of software, the
"New" option in File Manager still only offer a list of predefined
filetypes, all of which of course come with their own extension; I was
wondering if there was any way to add to that list the option to add a
new filetype with an arbitrary (or no) extension.

Given that you _can_ only create files from the predefined list of
types, I _can_ relatively easily edit the extension: the new filename
appears with the before-the-dot part _highlighted_, since in most case
people _don't_ want to change the extension, but it's easy to move the
cursor (or whatever) to edit the extension if you want to. (At least it
is with "hide extensions" turned off; I usually turn that off so soon
after starting using a system that I don't know if you can edit
extensions when hidden.)

> 
> ... but reading on I think I made an assumption which has made a fool outof 
> me :
> 
>> The better method is to ensure "show extensions [even] for known 
>> filetypes"
>> is selected, then you can edit including the extensions without running 
>> the
>> files through anything.
> 
> I /assumed/ that you saw, after creating a new document, something like 
> "[filename].ext", with only the part beween the "[" and "]" being editable. 

Well, only that part is _highlighted_, but you can move onto the
extension easily enough.

> Which, from my POV, didn't seem too strange, as most people will want to 
> keep the extension when changing the filename.
> 
> The ctrl-a "trick" was, I assumed, to change the above into "[filename.ext]" 
> (making the full filename editable).
> 
> But yes, its quite possible that me having changed the OS configuration when 
> I installed it to always show extensions just /might/ have something to do 
> with me always seeing and being able to edit the full filename. <whistle>
> 
>> That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
>> since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.
> 
> I do not agree with you there.
> 
> Most users are just that, *users*.  They know which icon they need to click 
> on their desktop, but often no more than that.   They really need to be 
> protected against their own absense of knowledge (the same reason for why 
> certain OS related files are hidden).  Making sure that they can change a 
> filename but not inadvertedly throw the extension away (after which the icon 
> changes and they cannot find the file back and/or double-click it to open 
> it) is one of those protections.

They need to be protected against inadvertently changing extensions,
granted. That's why, if you have hiding turned off (i. e. extensions
visible) and you select rename (e. f. with F2), only the name part is
_highlighted_.

But they also need protecting against malware with "double extensions",
such as .doc.exe (or perhaps .txt.com more likely when this practice
started). Such malware would, if extensions are hidden, just appear as
.doc or .txt files; sure, the user will have a moment of puzzlement at
seeing those extensions when s/he thought they'd turned them off, but
might well still double-click them. I think actually running malware is
more dangerous than just changing an extension - the latter can usually
be fixed by asking someone more experienced if they can't find the file,
but the former might do goodness knows what, certainly nothing benign or
its writer wouldn't have done it.>
> Remember all those stories about users which tried to "clean up" their 
> 'puters by throwing all files away they did not recognise - and than 
> complained that their 'puter would not start anymore ?  Yeah
> that happens when you "clean up" the OS folder that way.  :-)

Yes. And those stories of all those users who clicked on (say)
sharapova.jpg (I think that was the name) thinking they'd see a picture
of a tennis player.>
> But for "power"-users ?   Certainly.  But they are knowledgable enough to 
> disable such hand-holding protections in the configuration just after having 
> installed the OS.   As yours truly has done, and absolutily forgotten about. 
> :-|
> 
> As for the "black hat" example you've given ?   AFAIK the OS tries to warn 
> you with a popup when you try to start downloaded executables.  What does 

Yes, it does these days. (Though trivial to bypass by moving the
executables from somewhere other than the internet. But probably saves
_some_ malware from being run, if it wasn't for ...)

> the run-of-the-mill user ?   Figure out which choice makes the popup go away 
> and than blindly apply it, without even reading what it tries to tell them 

... that.) I used to have a quote something like "The difficulty in
making things idiot-proof, is that idiots can be so damn ingenious."

> (yeah, I have been shoulder-surfing a number of such users, just to figure 
> out what went "wrong" on their machine - a popup comes up and within half a 
> second its been clicked away). :-\

Very true. And not just they, but we do it too - the "ohnosecond"
between dismissing and thinking "_what_ did that say?".

> 
> As such I expect one of the future Windows versions to have a default 
> configuration that prohibits the user from running any executable (of any 
> kind) that has somehow been copied into it (downloaded, thumbdrive, etc).

We sure seem to be going that way. The eternal nannying increase is one
of the main reasons I hate "up"grading!>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 
> 
John
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Heaven forbid today's audience should feel bombarded with information or
worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:51:54 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> On 2025/7/29 9:3:25, R.Wieser wrote:


[snip]
 
> That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
> since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.

Do you mean something like this?

info.txt.exe

That's not really "double extension". The extension is .exe, but Windows 
(by default) makes it look like .txt but that is not an extension (which 
explains why its not hidden too). Click on the file and Windows knows the 
extension is .exe.

BTW, I always turn that lying option off.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"To me, faith is not better because it is atheistic rather than
theistic. I am an atheist because of a *lack* of faith, *not* because of
a different faith." [Russell Turpin on alt.atheism]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395

On Wed, 7/30/2025 2:15 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:51:54 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> On 2025/7/29 9:3:25, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
>  
>> That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
>> since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.
> 
> Do you mean something like this?
> 
> info.txt.exe
> 
> That's not really "double extension". The extension is .exe, but Windows 
> (by default) makes it look like .txt but that is not an extension (which 
> explains why its not hidden too). Click on the file and Windows knows the 
> extension is .exe.
> 
> BTW, I always turn that lying option off.
> 

That's your OPSEC showing.

You want to see the full name, extensions and all,
so you don't get phished.

This is why we turn on the extensions -- "full disclosure".

There are still tricks you can do with exotic character sets,
so really this only alerts you to the "easy phishing". There
are also character sequences that can be used, where only a person
with good eyesight will detect something is wrong with the file.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.internet.services.video.youtube

csiph-web