Ok I was talking to a friend today when I came across a very interesting piece of information. He said that he found out that Microsoft in Windows XP (and probally in earlier versions, not sure) has many truely hidden files. These differ from the files that appear when you turn on “show hidden files”. This isnt a windows conspiracy post its the truth and i pose the question is it right to hide data from you since it is your computer… You can see what I am talking about by doing some simple steps.
(You must have windows xp do do this)
go to this folder: (Drive Letter):\Documents and Settings%username%\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5
Nothing is there except a bunch of cookies right? Well…now add this to the end of that \content.ie5
…well if you done it right you should be able to see a folder that is truely hidden with out that last extenction … i tried it on my computer and i saw it too. Ok the question. Should Microsoft be able to keep this folder to keep track of your browsing activity? Try deleting them…unless you run your computer in a pure non-windows dos boot in Safe Mode Command Prompt Only can you delete them. This is an ethical question, and I personally believe that it is wrong for them to make you have a false sense of belief that your browsing activity is deleted when you click on the “clear history” button… What do you think?
I believe it is wrong, but I’d be really interested in knowing what purpose it serves. Why did they take the time to enable this functionality and with what tools were they going to extract the information?
These files are only hidden from GUI users. For the very good reason that anyone who is using the GUI doesnt’ have any business messing with these files.
open a command prompt and change the directory to that folder
and you can see a fully directory listing and manipulate the files normally.
Or in other words, your friend is either making much ado about nothing or isn’t a very sophisticated user. If he’s the latter, then he can only do harm by mucking about in the folder, and if he’s the former, then he knows that these files aren’t really hidden.
I don’t see an issue here. IE saves your files into separate folders that you can access from the command line if you desire. These folders are named with hashed file names that I assume are generated by date / time information so that they can easily be deleted as they expire – it’s easier to do it if you do the sorting up front and store them by date in this manner. However, when you open this folder in the Windows Explorer, Windows reads the contents of the subfolders and presents the files as though they were all in the same folder, for your ease of use. This way, you don’t have to figure out a date for what you’re looking for if you’re browsing through your temp files. In principle, this is really no different than the fact that the GUI shows each user’s documents as being stored in “%Username%'s Documents” at the top level of My Computer, even though the folders are really named “My Documents” and are stored under each user’s own directory. Again, it is a convenience so that you don’t have to go wading to find something.
To repeat myself, these subfolders are easily accessible through the command line, and they disappear when you clear your history.
Even if there were secret, hidden files on my computer, the Microsoft EULA says that they can basically do whatever they want because no one is coercing you into using Windows. Your fears are unfounded, and your friend is just inciting trouble, IMO.
If you’re using Windows even after all the reports of security problems and corporate shenanagans and spyware and whatnot, you deserve whatever you get.
Anyone seen a use for “index.dat”? You can delete it on every reboot or leave it alone and it has absolutely no effect on the system. What is it’s function?
While I admit that this situation is obviously much ado about nothing I have a hard time believe any fears are unfounded if the EULA says they can ‘do whatever they want’… to me this seems contradictory. If they can do whatever they want with few if any consequences then paranoia seems the safest route.
Uh huh yea… .because we all know the alternatives are 100% secure :rolleyes:
This says more about the system administrator than the security of the operating system. *nix expects one to be competent. As long as you aren’t a dumbass, like the guy who let FSF get 0wn3d, a *nix OS is the safest thing around.
Eeeh… I remember reading about those files in a computer manual 5 years ago. I don’t think they’re a secret, just some stuff many users don’t need or use.
Apple and Linux haven’t been deemed unstable by the mainstream yet because “nobody” uses them. As soon as their popularity grows (if), so will the number of viruses and security lapses those users will have to deal with.
Technically, you are leasing your OS from Microsoft. The EULA includes all of this information.
There is a wealth of information on your system. You are aware of less than 10 percent of it on a daily basis. The most amusing example of this is the fact that you have the capability of switching from a QWERTY style keyboard to the, uh, Dvorak (?) keyboard. All you have to do is find the configuration file. Windows is chock full of neato little stuff like this.
The number of hackers trying to find security holes in MacOS X and Linux will definitely grow in this scenario. Whether or not they will actually find any is another matter. And given the maturity and open-source nature of both of these OSes, I’d wager good money there won’t be as many. Like Iraqi WMDs, you can’t find what doesn’t exist.
rjung, your kidding right? Microsofts staff of 25,000 tests retests and triple tests every piece of software that goes through. I’d say its safe to say that just one of Microsofts OS’s, Win XP for example, has already endured a longer and more complete test life than Linux has in its entirety. Ever watched a new user try to install Linux? Yeah right. Sooooo many of the little things have been taken care of in Microsoft that people dont even notice. The best you can say for Linux is, “yeah, it works i guess”.
I gay-run-tee that if Linux magically had the market share that Windows currently has - it would collapse from the pressure of hackers and its non-user-ability.
