Comment by weinzierl
6 days ago
"For nearly thirty years, notepad.exe was the gold standard for a "dumb" utility which was a simple, win32-backed buffer for strings that did exactly one thing...display text."
Well, except that this did not prevent it from having embarrassing bugs. Google "Bush hid the facts" for an example. I'm serious, you won't be disappointed.
I think complexity is relative. At the time of the "Bush hid the facts" bug, nailing down Unicode and text encodings was still considered rocket science. Now this is a solved problem and we have other battles we fight.
As funny as the "Bush hid the facts" bug may be, there is a world of difference between an embarassing mistake by a function that guesses the text encoding wrong, and a goddamn remote code execution with an 8.8 score
> and we have other battles we fight.
Except no, we don't. notepad.exe was DONE SOFTWARE. It was feature complete. It didn't have to change. This is not a battle that needed fighting, this was hitting a brick wall with ones fist for no good reason, and then complaining about the resulting pain.
They also wanted to use the popularity of Notepad, so they replaced it with an AI bloatware version instead of creating a new app with extra features.
They didn't need to create a new app. At the same time that they started adding LLM garbage to Notepad, they discontinued WordPad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Notepad#Change_in_deve... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPad#Discontinuation
They likely knew nobody would be drawn to WordPad by the additions, so they had to scavenge their rapidly diminishing list of actually useful software for sacrifices on the altar to their outrageous AI investments.
How long were they threatening to kill snipping tool despite it being a perfectly serviceable piece of kit so we could switch to some shitty alternative?
1 reply →
For a good built in "done" text editor, theres apples textedit. It's barely changed since NeXTSTEP and works flawlessly and is FOSS. As much as I hate apple there's a reason I have GNUstep installed on most of my *nix boxes
I would agree if it were RCE
This definition in the first paragraph on Wikipedia matches my understanding of it as a security consultant:
> The ability to trigger arbitrary code execution over a network (especially via a wide-area network such as the Internet) is often referred to as remote code execution (RCE or RCX). --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_code_execution
Issues in handling local files, whether they require user interaction or not, are just that
Doesn't take away from the absurdity that notepad isn't a notepad but does extensive file contents parsing
> Except no, we don't. notepad.exe was DONE SOFTWARE
While 8.8 score is embarrassing, by no measure notepad was done software. It couldn't load a large text file for one, its search was barely functional, had funky issues with encoding, etc.
Notepad++ is closer to what should be expected from an OS basic text editor
What counts as "large"? I'm pretty sure at some point in my life I'd opened the entirety of Moby Dick in Notepad. Unless you want to look for text in a binary file (which Notepad definitely isn't for) I doubt you'll run into that problem too often.
Also, I hope the irony of you citing Notepad++ [1] as what Notepad should aim to be isn't lost on you. My point being, these kinds of vulnerabilities shouldn't exist in a fucking text editor.
[1] https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/hijacked-incident-info-up...
5 replies →
Notepad++ might be too much for a simple utility.
Plus for many years Word was one of the main cash cows for MS, so they didn't want to make an editor that would take away from Word.
And you could see how adding new things adds vulnerabilities. In this case they added ability to see/render markdown and with markdown they render links, which in this case allowed executing remote code when user clicks on a link.
1 reply →
notepad.exe worked just fine.
Notepad++ is a monster software.
> t couldn't load a large text file for one, its search was barely functional, had funky issues with encoding, etc.
It was working according to the spec. Which is very unusual in the SW world.
> nailing down Unicode and text encodings was still considered rocket science. Now this is a solved problem
I wish…
Detecting text encoding is only easy if all you need to contend with is UTF16-with-BOM, UTF8-with-BOM, UTF8-without-BOM, and plain ASCII (which is effectively also UTF8). As soon as you might see UTF16 or UCS without a BOM, or 8-bit codepages other than plain ASCII (many apps/libs assume that these are always CP1252, a superset of the printable characters of ISO-8859-1, which may not be the case), things are not fully deterministic.
Thankfully UTF8 has largely won out over the many 8-bit encodings, but that leaves the interesting case of UTF8-with-BOM. The standard recommends against using it, that plain UTF8 is the way to go, but to get Excel to correctly load a UTF8 encoded CSV or similar you must include the BOM (otherwise it assumes CP 1252 and characters above 127 are corrupted). But… some apps/libs are completely unaware that UTF8-with-BOM is a thing at all so they load such files with the first column header corrupted.
Source: we have clients pushing & pulling (or having us push/pull) data back & forth in various CSV formats, and we see some oddities in what we receive and what we are expected to send more regularly than you might think. The real fun comes when something at the client's end processes text badly (multiple steps with more than one of them incorrectly reading UTF8 as CP1252, for example) before we get hold of it, and we have to convince them that what they have sent is non-deterministically corrupt and we can't reliably fix it on the receiving end…
> to get Excel to correctly load a UTF8 encoded CSV or similar you must include the BOM
Ah so that’s the trick! I’ve run into this problem a bunch of times in the wild, where some script emits csv which works on the developers machine but fails strangely with real world data.
Good to know there’s a simple solution. I hope I remember your comment next time I see this!
Excel CSV is broken anyway, since in some (EU, ...) countries it needs ; as separator.
5 replies →
The very fact that UTF-8 itself discouraged from using the BOM is just so alien to me. I understand they want it to be the last encoding and therefore not in need of a explicit indicator, but as it currently IS NOT the only encoding that is used, it makes is just so difficult to understand if I'm reading any of the weird ASCII derivatives or actual Unicode.
It's maddening and it's frustrating. The US doesn't have any of these issues, but in Europe, that's a complete mess!
> The US doesn't have any of these issues
I think you mean “the US chooses to completely ignore these issues and gets away with it because they defined the basic standard that is used, ASCII, way-back-when, and didn't foresee it becoming an international thing so didn't think about anyone else” :)
1 reply →
From wikipedia...
That last one is a weaker point but it is true that with CSV a BOM is more likely to do harm, than good.
> The very fact that UTF-8 itself discouraged from using the BOM is just so alien to me.
One of the key advantages of UTF8 is that all ASCII content is effectively UTF-8. Having the BOM present reduces that convenience a bit, and a file starting with the three bytes 0xEF,0xBB,0xBF may be mistaken by some tools for a binary file rather than readable text.
2 replies →
> The very fact that UTF-8 itself discouraged from using the BOM is just so alien to me.
Adding a BOM makes it incompatible with ASCII, which is one of the benefits of using UTF-8.
2 replies →
Indeed, I've been using the BOM in all my text files for maybe decades now, those who wrote the recommendation are clearly from an English country
1 reply →
There is a difference between a bug you laugh at and walk away and a bug a scammer laughs at as he walks away with your money.
When I open something in Notepad, I don't expect it to be a possible attack vector for installing ransomware on my machine. I expect it to be text. It being displayed incorrectly is supposed to be the worst thing that could happen. There should be no reason to make Notepad capable of recognizing links, let alone opening them. Save that crap for VS Code or some other app I already know not to trust.
Embarrassing bugs are not RCEs. Also the industry should be more mature now, not less. But move fast and break things, I guess...
We have reached peak software stability, it's all gonna be downhill from here.
Peak software stability was Windows 7, that's why it's still used in industrial environments.
1 reply →
We are living in the future!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_hid_the_facts
To be honest, the 'bush hid the facts' bug was funny and was not really a vulnerability that could be exploited, unless... you understood Chinese and the alternative text would manage to pursuade you to do something harmful.
In fact, those were the good days, when a mere affair with your secretary would be enough to jeopardize your career. The pendulum couldn't have swung more since.
> unless... you understood Chinese and the alternative text would manage to persuade you to do something harmful
Oh, here is the file I just saved... I see that it now tells me to rob a bank and donate the money to some random cult I'm just learning about.
Let me make a web search to understand how to contact the cult leader and proceed with my plan!
(luckily LLMs were not a thing back then :) )
I am pretty sure it's possible to fix that entire category of bugs without introducing RCE vulnerabilities.
> Now this is a solved problem
Is that so? I ran pretty often in problems with programs having trouble with non-ANSI characters
Fascinating reading about that bug, thanks for sharing
It's not solved, we just don't have to guess the encoding any more because it's always UTF-8.