4 ms·

Anyone know why the executable name of the Windows installer ends with "putes"? I get that it's "setup" backwards, but why obfuscate like that?

• dwattttt 4y ago
  There's a compatibility hack in Windows that causes binaries with "setup" in the name to request administrator privileges, unless they embed a manifest that specifies they don't need it (last part slightly speculative)
  • mwcampbell 4y ago
    So I wonder why they obfuscated the executable name rather than adding the required manifest properties. I get that the overall negativity of this thread led me to look at this with extra scrutiny, but wouldn't the unknown word "putes" in the executable name make anyone suspicious?
    • debugnik 4y ago
      Worse than unknown, it actually translates or sounds really close to "whores" in several languages. Really unfortunate workaround.
    • ComputerGuru 4y ago
      The manifest needs to be embedded with the MS build tools (which aren’t available for cross platform builds) or separately as myfile.exe.manifest (making it no longer a single-file download).
      • mwcampbell 4y ago
        On further investigation, the executable already has a manifest in it. I believe the missing bit of XML is this: <trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3"> <security> <requestedPrivileges> <requestedExecutionLevel level="asInvoker" uiAccess="false" /> </requestedPrivileges> </security> </trustInfo> No, I don't know where that's documented. I pulled it out of the manifest of an existing installer.