"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>Ant wrote :
>> I wouldn't like that at all. If I double click on a malicious exe (not
>> that I deliberately do) renamed as ".vir" or ".bin" then I don't want
>> the OS deciding what to do with it; i.e. run it. I want it to open in
>> a hex editor or whatever I've associated to those extensions.
>
> Yeah, I hadn't considered the ease at which one can 'name away'
> executables. I suppose though that it could be done with an execute bit
> or something like that.

That's how Unix does it.

>> The only way that could work is if displaying an icon resource from
>> the exe were disallowed.
>
> It could still be allowed, but the shell could overlay something akin
> to what it does with shortcut icons. An executable would *always* show
> that it is an executable by a star (instead of a little arrow) in the
> corner, or a border color for the entire icon. All executables could be
> identified clearly no matter what custom icon was included.

I think that would be a good idea anyway. Make applications very
distinct from documents/data.

>> also no quick way of determining whether a file is text only,
>> especially in these days of unicode.
>
> I suppose the OS could determine such when the file is first saved with
> content and such metadata could be stored in the filesystem where it is
> more easily accessed.

Like the resource fork in MacOS or alternate data streams and extended
attributes in NTFS. The trouble is that a file and its metadata are
soon parted when copied to other file systems (USB sticks).