how do i upload a bin file as an attachment?.

[ME]

?

[ME]

Sorted by zipping it.

[jpanhalt]

Can you zip it?  That's  typical solution.

[EEVblog]

For security reasons we don't allow binary file attachments.

[radiolistener]

register google account, sign in and open google drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/

Then:
1) Upload your file (click on button +New->File upload)
2) Click on the file with right mouse button and select Share->Share.
3) In opened Share window select "Anyone with the link" for General Access option (by default it is selected to Restricted, so it won't allow access for anyone except selected users list).
4) Click Copy link button and share it with someone. He will be able to download it.

[jpanhalt]

The zip method seemed to work for a BIN file yesterday.  I didn't bother trying to open it though.

[golden_labels]

Zip, Tar, and 7z archives are all permitted. You can put anything into them. As far as I understand,⁽¹⁾ file names are limited to avoid unintended or unexpected execution of programs, pretending to be non-executables, under Windows.

Please, don’t upload to external services. It’s a horrible idea.

⁽¹⁾ From how it usually goes. EEVblog forum’s reasoning may differ in that matter.

[PA0PBZ]

For security reasons we don't allow binary file attachments.

I understand the reasoning behind it and blocking .com, .exe and .scr files makes sense. However, I don't see the need to block .bin files, is there any os that would/could execute these after downloading?
Having said that, putting them in a zip is a perfect solution (and kind of defeats the blocking).

[golden_labels]

Strictly speaking nothing is blocked. Not .bin, not .com, not .scr, not even .exe. This isn’t a blacklist. It’s a whitelist. They’re simply not explicitly permitted. And I wouldn’t want to be the person, who makes a decision to permit executables.

I understand the reasoning behind it and blocking .com, .exe and .scr files makes sense. However, I don't see the need to block .bin files, is there any os that would/could execute these after downloading?

Historically? .bin and .iso may be optical disk images. Upon double-clicking where a relevant program is installed, they get mounted and autostarted.

This isn’t my argument against permitting the extension. Just showing, how easy it is to miss such opportunities.

Having said that, putting them in a zip is a perfect solution (and kind of defeats the blocking).

The goal is to prevent unintended or unexpected execution, not to make sharing executables impossible. The latter can’t really be stopped. But the former can and it does work in this case. One can’t execute a binary in an archive by double-clicking that archive itself under Windows.⁽¹⁾ Keep in mind Windows hides the final part of a filename by default. So “circuit.png.exe” is displayed as “circuit.png” to most people.

Various security solutions may also block or blacklist the entire domain, if they detect any malicious executable or just any executable. It also prevents the use of forum attachments as “free CDN” to spread malware.

⁽¹⁾ To be correct, Windows for quite some time now warns if you try to run an executable. But this isn’t foolproof: people still happen to run them by accident.

[Ian.M]

Allowing .bin files would only encourage more breaches of rule 6:

6) No attaching of commercial copyrighted material is allowed. i.e product firmware files for hacks

At the moment Dave turns a blind eye to occasional firmware files mostly for legacy devices where the OEM is long gone, in amongst various FOSS firmware which doesn't fall under rule 6.  Don't 'stir the pot' and force him to take notice! 

[Zero999]

Windows hides the final part of a filename by default. So “circuit.png.exe” is displayed as “circuit.png” to most people.

Is that still the case? I thought they changed that? Either way, this website clearly shows the extension on the hyperlink, irrespective of Windows.