[ale] palm41.dll weirdness

[Geoffrey]

Robert Reese wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> On 9/19/2004 at 7:56 AM Geoffrey wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>And you determined this how?  Certainly not by the name alone..
> 
> 
>>>Not /entirely/...
> 
> 
>>How else?
> 
> 
> Simple, really.  I run Windows and own(ed) a Palm Pilot.  This isn't the
> first time I've encountered this DLL (Dynamic Link Library).  ;c)

But you're making the assumption that this file is the real thing.  Not 
a good thing to do.

>>>>>Anyway, the file itself is pretty harmless, even on a windows machine. 
>>>>
>>>>As long as it REALLY is what you THINK it is.
>>>
>>>Well, he DID run strings, didn't he?
>>
>>True, but I'm pretty sure your post was before he posted the output to 
>>strings... :)
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't remember.  I think I was formulating a response when the
> strings reply came back.  Anyway, it doesn't matter much and here's why:
> Dynamic Link Libraries don't belong on Linux boxes, right?  So they
> obviously aren't self-executable by reckoning of the operating system.

Wrong, any file that has the executable bit set is executable in a Unix 
environment.  It does not matter what the file name is.  You're assuming 
it's a dll by way of the name.

> Nor
> are they self-executable on Windows machines; in fact, most are just
> 'chunks of code' that are called into play / memory only when needed, which
> is their purpose and in concept a sound idea.  Further, if you were to
> write a virus for *nix machines, would you use a naming convention that
> followed the Windows file extension of .dll?  Nor likely would any *nix
> virus writer I would think. ;c)

Possibly, in order to cause folks to make that same assumption you've 
made, that it's a 'safe' file in a Unix environment.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey       Registered Linux User #108567
                             AT&T Certified UNIX System Programmer - 1995