Robert Heller a écrit : > At Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:07:05 +0200 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote: > >> Robert Heller a écrit : >>> [snip] >>> >>> Linux does not care about file *names*. >> indeed Linux does not. but desktop managers do. That said, *.exe attacks > > Are you sure? I would think that *Linux*-based desktop managers would > do something 'smart' like use the results of file (specificly 'file -i > ..') rather than depend on the file name itself. I just tried: renaming a .mp3 to a .gif and double clicking. I get an error saying something like "bad gif file"... The problem with the "file type" is that users don't see it. when I click to open a file, I somewhat "trust" the extension. If I open foo.png, it's because I want top open an image, not to run latex or make. maybe the solution would be to check that the extension matches the file type and if not warn the user. > I know that since > MS-Windows lacks anything like the file command (as part of the native > O/S install), it uses the file extension as a 'type'. > While that was inherited from DOS, the fact that windows took the "it's all about clicking" way, they didn't have much choice. and it gets annoying anyway: - when I double click on a ".pl", do I want to run perl or do I want to edit the file? - sometimes, when you remove an application (on windows xp), the system can no more find the "most appropriate" application (even if you have many apps that would be ok). - many applications have a tendency to "steal" a lot of extensions. under windows, I never let such an app to register any association! ...