Outlook by default blocks .url attachments and not .htm – why?

Any dangerous URL that could be in .url file, could also easily be in a .htm file and could be launched using javascript automatically. I see the same risk with both attachments, but Microsoft treats it differently. Am I missing something here? How is a .htm file safer than .url?

What else could be in .url file that a hacker could not put in .htm file?

link|improve this question
Maybe there is a known vulnerability with .url files which would cause contained data to be interpreted without user interaction. – Oliver Salzburg Feb 28 at 12:59
feedback

migrated from stackoverflow.com Sep 14 '11 at 9:37

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

1 Answer

You can disable scripts and redirects through browser security settings if you desire to do so.

You'd need to disable .url file support completely for some protection against those.

link|improve this answer
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown