an you create a folder called “con“ in Windows?

Hi,


Someone pl. let me know why we cannot create a folder?

Can you create a folder called “con“ anywhere on Windows system?

Anban

Is that ever fricken wierd...

Off to ms right now....

see what I can find.

Wonder what else you can name a folder

MLF

Found it....

http://www.governmentsecurity.org/fo...hp/t16294.html

Quote:

---

The following reserved device names cannot be used as the name of a file:CON, PRN, AUX, CLOCK$, NUL, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM6, COM7, COM8, COM9, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, LPT4, LPT5, LPT6, LPT7, LPT8, and LPT9.

---

In windows NT family it might just be protected (for backward comp. or something)..

In DOS based windows vesions (9x and older) it was something other all together..
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...4-4D02B9A78C5B

The con\con used to be the DOS virtual console device or something (can't remember is over 13 years ago I last used it)..

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_fil_rbrx.asp

I remember reading about this a few years ago...apparently it brings up the blue screen if you type /con(or /con/con) or any of the others as well.(Or did till Win98 if my memory serves me right.)

aha! very intresting

needless to say that no search can find this folder


did u catch this by coincidence or u read it somewhere else :P

Those words not almost banned for creation of folders.
I traid to create one folder (con) on remote linux server trough ftp and that was fine with no problems, but when I traid to attach it throug lan as net work disk i got little problem, just some dalay, windows was asked me if I want to rename that folder. Thats it.

And after that when browsed lan folder it was shown as "CSHOFG~F" and not "con".

But I was still able to run one app direct throug console

\\linux\test\con\app.exe
and
\\linux\test\CSHOFG~F\app.exe

become be same.

It is just explorer that could show just CSHOFG~F and could not use con.

con = display
::output on screen
dir * > con

so, that was it

Quote:

---

# Several special file names are reserved by the system and cannot be used for files or folders:

---

Microsoft just says you cant. Snippet from Microsoft

This thread is like echo country..

After the first four posts it's all the same only in thinking not linking..
(edit: whith the exception of MrBabis who actualy found out something interesting..)

Can't anybody read anymore ??

Haha, I just woke up. I didnt read a things. Ill admit it, I just said the same thing as therenegade Buuuuuuuuurn. ;)

What if you were to mount the FAT filesystem in linux and mkdir con, then boot into windows What would that do?

I don't know.. You should try, realy..

But I think.. Atleast in in the NT family (Windows2000/XP) it'll do something like MrBabis's test did..
In windows you'll see a folder with a name like CSHOFG~F
But that's an educated guess, nothing more..

I vaguely remember this from a long time ago, but cannot recall the context :(

If you really want to use these reserved names you have to add something such as con1 or conA. What I am saying is that the reservation is specific not generic.

So, if you are importing a file from another OS you have to write a line of code to change it. We decided on the suffix method for consistency reasons. I really cannot remember but I think our file was coming from an AS/400 or a 3090 mainframe. I know it took me a little while to figure out what was going wrong :D

Quote:

---

What if you were to mount the FAT filesystem in linux and mkdir con, then boot into windows What would that do?

---

Most likely, the directory would exist, but when you name it from
the dos command line you get unexpected results, since dos
treats con as the console, instead of a file or directory.

I don't know what explorer would do. They may eventually phase this
behavior out. It's obsolete.
:cool:

dear anban,
yes , I can create a folder named "con"
==> mkdir "con\ "
mkdir con\o
cd con\o
----
but it's old fxp **** , isn't it?

Quote:

---

What if you were to mount the FAT filesystem in linux and mkdir con, then boot into windows What would that do?

---

Ok, why not.

Booted to Fc3, mounted a FAT32 win 98 disk.

Attempted to create a directory named con, it would not let me
“mkdir: cannot create directory `/mnt/windows/con': Invalid argument”

so, did the same thing except made directory convent, no problems.



Then, accessed a samba server from linux, made directory con then accessed the samba shares from XP-pro-sp2, no problems, no changes, accessed .exe files without problems. Through ME, ( on the same network, ) no problems, no alterations, IBID.

And yes. could not create a con directory directly in XP-Pro-Sp2 ( NTFS ) nor ME ( FAT32 ).

Nor could they be created on the Samba server from those OS's.

Interesting.

ah the good ol days 'con\con'. you could make an http page on your computer with a file:// link to a box with a shared directory running 98...add \con\con to the end, click the link and bye bye 98 boxen. sniff, sniff. they just dont make'em like that anymore.

It’s true that we can not create a folder name “con”.

It is true even if try to make a file name “con”

I think it is because “con” is used as command modifier and it can be used to create text file from DOS shell without using any text editor. It is a command line editor.

If we have a file or folder “con” such command will not be valid and hence DOS shell returns error

I don’t know about Bill Gates or Microsoft but this is my observation and I strongly feel this is the reason.

chipsns, try to read some of the answers before you post.

It's been answered in about 4 different ways already including links to the MS documents.

well according to the snippets provided here MS says the following:

# Several special file names are reserved by the system and cannot be used for files or folders:
# CON, AUX, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, PRN, NUL

Now I know for a /fact/ that you can create directories named AUX COM1 COM2 etc on a win2k box using POSIX. I have seen it done, and I have had to remove them from a compromised box in the past. So that would mean the same technique can be used to create a CON dir too.

If I have time later today I'll tag one of our internal test boxes and create a CON dir using the methods that most taggers use.


*EDIT*

Followed a link to this thread from here and responded before I noticed the date of last response. Sorry, but my offer still stands if I have time.