Default vfat file permissions - why executable?

Brian Vidal dael99 at
Wed Oct 7 04:07:01 UTC 2009

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:45:37 -0400, Ethan Baldridge  
<ethan at> wrote:

> This is broken - Nautilus should be using magic numbers, not extensions.
> If the .bin file is actually an executable shell script it shouldn't be
> assumed to be a Mac OSX binary. You should file a bug report. I haven't
> noticed this behavior yet, but it's definitely broken if you're right.

I'll do that. as soon as i remember from where I've downloaded the '.bin'  
(...could have been 'Titanium'?)

> Sorry, but IMO this is an awful idea - file operations should not be
> dependent on arbitrary parts of the filename. See your problem with .bin
> files above for an example why not.

I have to accept that the .bin recognition will not solve the malware  
but nowadays if a double click an '.exe' expecting to have a wine  
application there's
no guarantee that i will have this really.

> To help prevent malware, I would say a better idea would be to issue a
> warning if running an executable file from outside of $PATH. "You are
> about to run a non-system executable. If you do not expect this file to
> be an executable program or you do not trust the source, please cancel
> the operation. [More Info] [Execute] [Cancel]" or something like that.

This could be a good idea, but you are forgetting non-GNU applications  
like Quake Wars,
for example.

If the user (maybe a noob) download a file and it's a '.bin' he will get  
message... I would get afraid.

But I see your point and I think that beyond going to change the way that  
the bianries
are treated, we should focus on how the user is dealing with them.

And, your idea is better. +1 to implement this.

Greetings. dael.

PD: be sure to put ubuntu-devel-discuss at in the to  
address, we don't want to exclude the others.
(in such case you have my mail).

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list