Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Web-App-Sec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: GMail blocking "executable" attachments

Subject: Re: GMail blocking "executable" attachments
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:30:07 -0700
I'm pretty sure they do.

It's depends on where the content will be delievered, I guess. If the
extension makes a difference as to whether it is executed or not then
there is no point checking the internal content. If the file is
executed based on it's header, then definately check it.

For example, find an executable, rename it to .txt and then go into
dos and type:
"whatever.txt". In my windows 2k and presumably XP, it will run it as
an executable, and not open it with notepad. If you double-click on it
from explorer, notepad opens it.

There should probably be a setting [but I suspect there already is] to
perform such a scan on the scanners you have on your servers.

-- Michael


On 4/19/05, Scovetta, Michael V <Michael.Scovetta@ca.com> wrote:
All-

I've noticed that G-Mail blocks attachments that contain "executable"
files. (A zip file containing an .MDB, and even a zip file containing a
zip file containing an .MDB). I assume they'd block all the usual
suspects, but isn't that sort of the point of sending e-mails with
attachments? Renaming the enclosed .MDB to .TXT allows it to be send
through, so it's not really a major problem. Do you think Google should
be deep-scanning the files for content, or just the extension, and would
running a virus detector against it be just as good?

No real issue here, I just thought it was interesting-not sure if other
major email providers do the same thing.

Regards,

Michael Scovetta
Computer Associates
Senior Application Developer



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>