Mysterious file!

[Nodge]

I have recently found that a mysterious file keeps appearing on my desktop.
It's filename is simply the squiggle character (above the hash symbol on the
keyboard). It's size is 177kb. I can open it in Notepad and it appears as
mostly blank spaces and gobble de gook but included in there are the
contents of my address book. I run AVG antivirus software and I always keep
it up to date. I have just run a complete scan and it found nothing. I have
tried deleting the file but it seems to reappear a couple of days later. I
also ran the Fixswen utility from Norton but that found nothing either. I
have noticed no ill affects as far as my PC goes but I'm very suspicious as
the file contains my address book.

Any ideas what can be causing this? I'm running XP Home.

Thanks
Nodge

 

[David H. Lipman]

It's called a tilde { ~ }

It's a bug in Outlook Express that generate a copy of your Windows Address Book. If you
rename it to TEST.WAB you can see your address book.

Just delete the file.

Dave



| I have recently found that a mysterious file keeps appearing on my desktop.
| It's filename is simply the squiggle character (above the hash symbol on the
| keyboard). It's size is 177kb. I can open it in Notepad and it appears as
| mostly blank spaces and gobble de gook but included in there are the
| contents of my address book. I run AVG antivirus software and I always keep
| it up to date. I have just run a complete scan and it found nothing. I have
| tried deleting the file but it seems to reappear a couple of days later. I
| also ran the Fixswen utility from Norton but that found nothing either. I
| have noticed no ill affects as far as my PC goes but I'm very suspicious as
| the file contains my address book.
|
| Any ideas what can be causing this? I'm running XP Home.
|
| Thanks
| Nodge
|
|

 

[Sir_George]

Nodge,

The following site will provide information about the "~" (Tilde) appearing
on the desktop;

http://filext.com/faq/idx/0/002/article/

 

[Nodge]

Thanks guys, I was getting worried there for a bit.

Nodge

 

[Travis]

That has happend to me. I have never opened it but it could be a virus. I
happens to me when I close Outlook Express. It would be good not to open ~.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Wrong !

Read my response. Even if it was a virus, an extentionless file would be safe to handle
since it can't be executed and it is not associated to any program.

Next time you see it, rename it to TEST.WAB. You'll see it is a copy of your address book.

Dave



| That has happend to me. I have never opened it but it could be a virus. I
| happens to me when I close Outlook Express. It would be good not to open ~.
| | > I have recently found that a mysterious file keeps appearing on my
| desktop.
| > It's filename is simply the squiggle character (above the hash symbol on
| the
| > keyboard). It's size is 177kb. I can open it in Notepad and it appears as
| > mostly blank spaces and gobble de gook but included in there are the
| > contents of my address book. I run AVG antivirus software and I always
| keep
| > it up to date. I have just run a complete scan and it found nothing. I
| have
| > tried deleting the file but it seems to reappear a couple of days later. I
| > also ran the Fixswen utility from Norton but that found nothing either. I
| > have noticed no ill affects as far as my PC goes but I'm very suspicious
| as
| > the file contains my address book.
| >
| > Any ideas what can be causing this? I'm running XP Home.
| >
| > Thanks
| > Nodge
| >
| >
|
|

 

[FromTheRafters]

...[...]...an extentionless file would be safe to handle since it can't
be executed and it is not associated to any program.

Actually, an extensionless file could be executed *because* it
is not (obviously) associated with any program.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Not in the Win32 environment, maybe in Unix if you set the attribute to executable. In
Win32 it would not know what to do with it.

Can you explain how it could be executed under a win32 environment ?

Dave



|
|
| > ...[...]...an extentionless file would be safe to handle since it can't
| > be executed and it is not associated to any program.
|
| Actually, an extensionless file could be executed *because* it
| is not (obviously) associated with any program.
|
|

 

[null]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:58:03 GMT, "David H. Lipman"

There. I took the time to cut and paste your damn top post so Rafters
post is on top where it should be. PITA!

|
|
| > ...[...]...an extentionless file would be safe to handle since it can't
| > be executed and it is not associated to any program.
|
| Actually, an extensionless file could be executed *because* it
| is not (obviously) associated with any program.

Not in the Win32 environment, maybe in Unix if you set the attribute to executable. In
Win32 it would not know what to do with it.

Can you explain how it could be executed under a win32 environment ?

Dave

Not even the NT based OS are stupid enough to execute a extensionless
file. Which give me an idea. If all email attachments were required to
be extensionless, the email worm problems could be reduced
significantly. Users would be forced to manually add a appropriate
file extension to attachments they have been expecting, and are pretty
certain are legit. Meanwhile, they should also av scan them on-demand.
In fact, a file type analyzer could also be used and useful in this.

Maybe if people had to work hard to get infested, things would
improve.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[David H. Lipman]

Art:

You are TOO friggen funny.

Thanx for the laugh !

Dave


| There. I took the time to cut and paste your damn top post so Rafters
| post is on top where it should be. PITA!

| Not even the NT based OS are stupid enough to execute a extensionless
| file. Which give me an idea. If all email attachments were required to
| be extensionless, the email worm problems could be reduced
| significantly. Users would be forced to manually add a appropriate
| file extension to attachments they have been expecting, and are pretty
| certain are legit. Meanwhile, they should also av scan them on-demand.
| In fact, a file type analyzer could also be used and useful in this.
|
| Maybe if people had to work hard to get infested, things would
| improve.
|
|
| Art
| http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[FromTheRafters]

Joining the legions of anarchistic top posters...

I was referring to the possibility that an OLE filetype such as
a Word document would still be associated with Word via its
header even though you may have removed the extension cue
that the OS uses for file associations.

If you use Wordpad to create a document and save the
file to the desktop, rename it as extensionless, and ask
Windows to make use of it by double-clicking on it, in
my case at least it associates the file with Word Viewer
despite the fact that there is no extension cue for the OS.

You can package objects such as a command line within
the document ~ and perhaps with XP you can execute
an executable that has been renamed to a .zip extension
through this method.

....of course, I could be wrong about this.

 

[Heather]

OMG!! Are there 2 blue moons in the sky?? Rafters top posting?? Yay, he
has seen the light......grin.

Hey FTR......we top post in the MS ng's all the time.....bottom posters are
a PITA. But we will never convince the old guys.......)

Figgs

Joining the legions of anarchistic top posters...

I was referring to the possibility that an OLE filetype such as
a Word document would still be associated with Word via its
header even though you may have removed the extension cue
that the OS uses for file associations.

If you use Wordpad to create a document and save the
file to the desktop, rename it as extensionless, and ask
Windows to make use of it by double-clicking on it, in
my case at least it associates the file with Word Viewer
despite the fact that there is no extension cue for the OS.

You can package objects such as a command line within
the document ~ and perhaps with XP you can execute
an executable that has been renamed to a .zip extension
through this method.

...of course, I could be wrong about this.

Not in the Win32 environment, maybe in Unix if you set the attribute to executable. In
Win32 it would not know what to do with it.

Can you explain how it could be executed under a win32 environment ?

Dave



|
|
| > ...[...]...an extentionless file would be safe to handle since it can't
| > be executed and it is not associated to any program.
|
| Actually, an extensionless file could be executed *because* it
| is not (obviously) associated with any program.
|
|

 

[Nick FitzGerald]

Wrong !

Actually, you are wrong on this one...

Read my response. Even if it was a virus, an extentionless file would be safe to handle
since it can't be executed and it is not associated to any program.

_That_ "extentionless" file may be safe to handle, but not all "extentionless"
files are. Depending on the file, the software installed and how an extensionless
file is being "handled" some versions of Windows will "do the right thing" (at
least under normal Redmond reasoning rules) for various file types _regardless_ of
their extension (at least for "wrong and unregistered" and "missing" extensions).

Next time you see it, rename it to TEST.WAB. You'll see it is a copy of your address book.

That is correct and the reason it is safe "extentionless" is that it is not a
native file type that Microsoft has deemed important enough that Windows "has to
know" how to handle such files unlike OLE2 compound document files and PEs.

 

[null]

OMG!! Are there 2 blue moons in the sky?? Rafters top posting?? Yay, he
has seen the light......grin.

Hey FTR......we top post in the MS ng's all the time.....

That figures. Buncha losers


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[null]

Actually, you are wrong on this one...


_That_ "extentionless" file may be safe to handle, but not all "extentionless"
files are. Depending on the file, the software installed and how an extensionless
file is being "handled" some versions of Windows will "do the right thing" (at
least under normal Redmond reasoning rules) for various file types _regardless_ of
their extension (at least for "wrong and unregistered" and "missing" extensions).

Let's say a file is actually a exe or com or pif or bat, etc., ie an
"executeable" file, but one that has been renamed to have no file
extension. Are you saying that there are circumstances where Windows
will allow such a extensionless file to execute or launch? If so,
precisely what are the conditions?


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Heather]

That figures. Buncha losers

Heh heh......come on over to the WinME groups and learn how to use your new
O/S......WITH a System Restore and IE that are functional......(VBG). And I
bottom posted just to confuse you.....;-)

 

[null]

Heh heh......come on over to the WinME groups and learn how to use your new
O/S......WITH a System Restore and IE that are functional......(VBG). And I
bottom posted just to confuse you.....;-)
Ms. MS.

Come on over to my web site and learn how to do it right

Mr. 9x/ME Surgeon


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Heather]

Come on over to my web site and learn how to do it right

Mr. 9x/ME Surgeon

Touché, mon ami........)

 

[null]

Touché, mon ami........)

I'm thinking about putting up a Win ME web page describing various
boot options that I've come across and find useful.

1. Boot up directly into DOS, create RAM drive, and install mouse
driver.
2. Boot into Windows from floppy.
3. Boot into Windows command prompt only.

These various boot modes (plus the standard Win ME system boot disk)
can be very handy for troubleshooting. And #1 is invaluable for those
who use DOS programs.

Win ME can be made to be just as flexible and nice as Win 98 in spite
of M$'s efforts to make things difficult


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Heather]

I'm thinking about putting up a Win ME web page describing various
boot options that I've come across and find useful.

1. Boot up directly into DOS, create RAM drive, and install mouse
driver.
2. Boot into Windows from floppy.
3. Boot into Windows command prompt only.

These various boot modes (plus the standard Win ME system boot disk)
can be very handy for troubleshooting. And #1 is invaluable for those
who use DOS programs.

Win ME can be made to be just as flexible and nice as Win 98 in spite
of M$'s efforts to make things difficult

Sounds good.......why not come over to WinME General and discuss it? Then
you can also teach me some stuff. (G)

Shane B. hasn't been around lately, but he is a good one to talk to.....and
Chris Q. Shane was messing around with some programs for ME.....can't
remember exactly what all they were, but Norton was one.

I never used Win98.......just 95. So to me, WinME is excellent. I do have
XP home here to put on, but frankly, not sure I want to yet. Besides, I
would prefer to partition and then dual boot and there are a few ways to go
re that. Additional HD, update the CPU......partition the existing 40 gig
one (half full now).....needs some thinking. And I am not up to doing it
myself. No 'old folks' around here that know anything about that sort of
stuff.

Heather