Tag only some file types

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phillip
  • Start date Start date
P

Phillip

Was disappointed to read TXT files cannot be tagged.
Guess I'll not be able to tag many of the files I wanted to
e.g. html, vbs, bat. (still waiting for vista upgrade)

Is there a list of common file types that can and can't be tagged?
Searched Google but found nothing.
 
Phillip said:
Was disappointed to read TXT files cannot be tagged.
Guess I'll not be able to tag many of the files I wanted to
e.g. html, vbs, bat. (still waiting for vista upgrade)

Is there a list of common file types that can and can't be tagged?
Searched Google but found nothing.
Click to expand...

This annoys me too. Under XP we used to be able to add metadata to any
file, even text files. Something like that might even make the search
functionality useful, as it would allow you to search by tag on
arbitrary files.

Daniel
 
On Thu said:
Phillip wrote:
Click to expand...
This annoys me too. Under XP we used to be able to add metadata to any
file, even text files. Something like that might even make the search
functionality useful, as it would allow you to search by tag on
arbitrary files.
Click to expand...

Depends where the tags go, I guess - some file formats contain tag
fields, whereas with text, every part of the file is content.

So, to tag a text file without botching the content or breaking its
text "purity", it would have to write to an ADS, add a companion file
(e.g. the way .PIF hold properties for DOS apps) or store it in some
sort of database - all of which are ugly, for various reasons.


------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
 
cquirke said:
Depends where the tags go, I guess - some file formats contain tag
fields, whereas with text, every part of the file is content.

So, to tag a text file without botching the content or breaking its
text "purity", it would have to write to an ADS, add a companion file
(e.g. the way .PIF hold properties for DOS apps) or store it in some
sort of database - all of which are ugly, for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Ugly, yes... but it's the way it was done in XP -- an ADS was
constructed containing the metadata. So now we have all these streams
containing metadata which Vista can't even access.

The nice thing about it using ADS is that it worked silently via Samba
-- it would just create a file on the other end with the colon and the
stream name. Nice and easy to back up. :-)

Daniel
 
On Mon said:
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

Ugly, yes... but it's the way it was done in XP -- an ADS was
constructed containing the metadata. So now we have all these streams
containing metadata which Vista can't even access.
Click to expand...

Vista can access ADS; whether it was written to do so is another
thing. There are very good reasons to leave ADS alone.
The nice thing about it using ADS is that it worked silently via Samba
-- it would just create a file on the other end with the colon and the
stream name. Nice and easy to back up. :-)
Click to expand...

ADS are a death-trap, because:
- the UI doesn't show them, so you have no control over them
- they can be automated as easily as via a batch file
- MS will happily run code hidden in them, by design
- code in an ADS takes the file name of the host file
- so Ctl+Alt+Del lists only the host file, not the ADS
- so firewalls checking only the host file, let ADS pass through
- most off-NTFS transfers strip the ADS, so...
- ...submitting ADS samples to av vendors is difficult

MS could have prevented code from running from an ADS, or filtered ADS
input to ensure only text was permitted, or provided a UI for ADS, or
done all of these risk-aware, clueful things. They did none of them.

Who needs a rootkit, when content within ADS is invvisible, by design?

The cure for ADS is FATxx ;-)

-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
Click to expand...
"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
 
Weong. ADS is built into OLE Compound files. So Doc, Xls, Mdb, Pps, et al
all support this. Technically it isn't an ADS as OLE files have a file
system built in. ADS replicates for non OLE files what OLE files have. So
Fat is no protection. Just put an ole file on disk with whatever you want in
the PLE file as a file (ole files are a file system, sub directories etc -
the file system merely resides in a single file).
 
Plus OLE is used by default by the shell if no registered file type for a
file. And OLE is used by default for OLE files by programs opening files via
OLE.
 
cquirke said:
ADS are a death-trap, because:
- the UI doesn't show them, so you have no control over them
Click to expand...

XP used to have this UI to modify the metadata, Vista removed it. This
is basically what I've been complaining about.

The UI in XP was useful: if the document happened to be a real OLE2
document it showed you the summary information from inside the OLE2
filesystem. If it wasn't an OLE2 document (e.g. if it was a text file)
then it showed the summary information from the ADS. The upshot is that
ultimately any file can have things like an Author set. You can kiss
that functionality goodbye in Vista (it won't even let you view the
metadata you already spent ages painstakingly creating under XP.)
MS could have prevented code from running from an ADS, or filtered ADS
input to ensure only text was permitted, or provided a UI for ADS, or
done all of these risk-aware, clueful things. They did none of them.
Click to expand...

This is all true but completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion,
which is regarding the (prior) use of ADS to store METADATA, not
arbitrary executable crap.

Daniel
 
Right click a MSI file (Windows Installer file) and choose Properties. I'm
not sure if it is an ADS or an Installer metadata editor. I research it one
day and know.
 
Weong.
Click to expand...

What is "weong"?

If you're going to top-post, then you have to contextualize.
ADS is built into OLE Compound files. So Doc, Xls, Mdb, Pps, et al
all support this. Technically it isn't an ADS as OLE files have a file
system built in. ADS replicates for non OLE files what OLE files have.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's not ADS at all, just something within a normal
file that works in similar ways.
So FATxx is no protection.
Click to expand...

I didn't say FATxx was a protection against OLE. I said it's a
protection against ADS, and it is - but it's good to highlight other
content embedding opportunities like OLE, archives, mailboxes, .PST,
..EML files and the re-packing of executables themselves.
Just put an ole file on disk with whatever you want in the
PLE file as a file (ole files are a file system, sub directories etc -
the file system merely resides in a single file).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up; I've never considered OLE as a file system
capable of directories etc. I thought it merely embedded content
within other files, but it seems as if it is more like archives than I
would have expected... and now, let us search...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83659

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~delara/papers/usenix_win2000/html/node5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding

Unfortunately, these results of Search( OLE format ) don't really go
into the binary structure, neither do they mention internal
equivalents of directories and subtrees.

Several file types are "tagged" in that the sort of info that
populates "properties" can be stored there. XML generalizes this to
include "lumpier" content, and the the middle of those links implies
this will grow to eclipse OLE. The Wikipedia article includes a
reminder of why one often has to click Flash content twice.
:


-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
 
In a Resource Kit or PSDK tools there is DocViewer which is a file system
view of an OLE compound file.

weong - I can't see the keyboard,
 
In a Resource Kit or PSDK tools there is DocViewer which is a file system
view of an OLE compound file.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm going to try and search for that, but in case I can't
resolve a link to it, can you URL me or give me the tool's name?
weong - I can't see the keyboard,
Click to expand...

I know how that goes :-)

Murphy's 1.17.1066 variation: If you are going to make a typo, it will
be when flaming somebody, especially when typing a "typo" flame

Hence the tag...


-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Trsut me, I won't make a mistake!
 
DFVIEW.exe

Google only giving me three hits for all of MS. Keeps warning me about
language. Did MS translate and replace their web site to another language
and not tell anyone.

This was hard to find. Remember to try it on Installer files.

http://www.endurasoft.com/vcd/ststo.htm has the file in the zip with code
samples 26K exe and the zip is 56k all up
 
DFVIEW.exe
Ah...

This was hard to find. Remember to try it on Installer files.
Click to expand...

....IKWYM - I found OLEView.exe, which is quite a different beast
(CLSID heaven!)
http://www.endurasoft.com/vcd/ststo.htm has the file in the zip with code
samples 26K exe and the zip is 56k all up
Click to expand...

Not too sure what endurasoft.com is, and somewhat loath to swallow
Vendor A's files via Vendor B, for unknown values of B.

Oh, I see; it's not MS's DFView.exe that's hosted there. A system
search doesn't find it on my PC either, so it looks like a hunt
through the MSDN suitcases... I hate that ;-)

Interesting, in view of "search" complaints:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/273992

Context...
------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
 
.. said:
I don't have any to test. Is it shown in Explorer's columns.
Click to expand...

I think it was displayed in the columns when it was a common metadata
property like "Author". If not, it was most definitely visible when
viewing Properties for a text file.

Daniel
 
Back
Top