Find Files: Executable files types

[admin]

I'd start with those defined in PATHEXT.
Mine: .COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH;.MSC;.PY;.PL;.PLX;.PS1;.PSC1;.AHK;.LNK

Mine: .COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH
(totally included in yours)

[TheQwerty]

If there is no way to remove extensions from this list then I'd suggest minimizing it to .bat.cmd.com.exe (or your pathext)

Anything else should be the default value of ExePreviewCustomExtensions, and for that I'd agree with what you have and also suggest these other interpreted languages:
.ahk - AutoHotkey
.py.pyc.pyw - Python; Compiled; No Console
.pl.plx.pm - Perl; Executable; Module
.go - Google Go
.lua - Lua
.rb.rbx - Ruby

EDIT: Although, I suppose having this key default to anything has other side effects right?

Off-topic: Sorry Don, I really wasn't advocating for any changes with my original post.

[admin]

If there is no way to remove extensions from this list then I'd suggest minimizing it to .bat.cmd.com.exe (or your pathext)

Anything else should be the default value of ExePreviewCustomExtensions, and for that I'd agree with what you have and also suggest these other interpreted languages:
.ahk - AutoHotkey
.py.pyc.pyw - Python; Compiled; No Console
.pl.plx.pm - Perl; Executable; Module
.go - Google Go
.lua - Lua
.rb.rbx - Ruby

EDIT: Although, I suppose having this key default to anything has other side effects right?

Off-topic: Sorry Don, I really wasn't advocating for any changes with my original post.

OK, I would at least add SCR to the list of "real" executables:
.bat.cmd.com.exe.scr.

All the others I'll pack into "Dangerous files".

[TheQwerty]

OK, I would at least add SCR to the list of "real" executables:
.bat.cmd.com.exe.scr.

Fair enough..

All the others I'll pack into "Dangerous files".

To be honest, I don't think I'd include this group at all, or has there been demand for it?

I can just imagine a user performing a search for all Dangerous Files expecting that XY is doing more analysis than just comparing extensions. Then being shocked by the thousands of results and deleting everything. Eventually they'll get to another working machine and thus begins the angry e-mails and reviews about how XY hosed their system.

Personally, I see no need for this category.

[admin]

All the others I'll pack into "Dangerous files".

To be honest, I don't think I'd include this group at all, or has there been demand for it?

I can just imagine a user performing a search for all Dangerous Files expecting that XY is doing more analysis than just comparing extensions. Then being shocked by the thousands of results and deleting everything. Eventually they'll get to another working machine and thus begins the angry e-mails and reviews about how XY hosed their system.

Personally, I see no need for this category.

Hmm, yeah, good point there. I'll take it away as if nothing ever happened. So the bottomline is a very small "executables" group. So you got what you (never) wanted.

[TheQwerty]

So the bottomline is a very small "executables" group. So you got what you (never) wanted.

I only feel it should be a small limited group because users can only add to and not subtract from the list. If you feel like making it possible to delete/disable hard-coded extensions then by all means add as many as possible.

But yes, I do feel better about this list of executables.

[j_c_hallgren]

FYI: HLP files can be dangerous as well --
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09 ... -help-file
Just a followup to this discussion...