Microsoft’s June 9, 2026 Windows security updates, including KB5094126 for Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2, can make custom folder icons and localized folder names disappear because Windows now ignores desktop.ini files whose source it cannot verify as trusted. The affected builds are 26100.8655 for Windows 11 24H2 and 26200.8655 for Windows 11 25H2. Microsoft’s position is blunt: this is not a conventional Explorer bug, but a hardening change. The irritation is real, but so is the security logic behind it.
The most Windows thing about this story is that the visible symptom looks trivial. A folder that used to carry a custom icon becomes a plain yellow folder. A localized display name gives way to the literal directory name underneath. Nothing seems broken enough to trigger alarms, but enough changes that users notice.
That is exactly why this update matters. Windows has spent decades teaching people to trust its visual language: icons, friendly names, folder templates, shell overlays, and localized labels all signal meaning before anyone opens a file. The June 2026 change says that some of those signals are no longer acceptable unless Windows can establish where they came from.
KB5094126 is the Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2 cumulative security update for June 2026, and the desktop.ini hardening is only one item in a broader patch. But it is the item most likely to look like a regression on a normal desktop. Security fixes are usually invisible until they fail; this one announces itself by making familiar folders look unfamiliar.
Microsoft’s bet is that a small amount of visual disruption is worth the reduction in ambiguity. That is a defensible call, but it also exposes how much legacy Windows behavior still depends on old shell mechanisms that were designed for convenience long before modern download provenance, browser zones, and endpoint security policy became central to daily computing.
That difference between name on disk and name on screen is the heart of the issue. Explorer is not merely listing directories like a terminal command. It is interpreting metadata and presentation hints, then turning the file system into a human-readable interface. desktop.ini is one of the ways that interpretation happens.
For most home users, the mechanism appears indirectly. Extracted theme packs, software bundles, portable app folders, language-specific resources, and downloaded archive structures may include these files. Users may never open or edit desktop.ini themselves, but they can still notice when Windows stops honoring it.
For administrators, desktop.ini is often part of the scenery. Shared template folders, redirected user folders, software distribution trees, departmental repositories, and localized enterprise images can all depend on shell presentation. A custom icon may not be mission-critical, but it can be a meaningful visual cue in a support script, onboarding share, or regulated document structure.
That is why calling the issue “missing icons” undersells it. The update changes whether Explorer trusts a set of instructions that can alter what users think they are looking at. A vanished icon is the visible artifact of a deeper policy decision.
Attackers do not need every trick to execute code directly to make it useful. Sometimes they need a folder to look like something it is not, to inherit the visual identity of a trusted location, or to nudge a user into opening the wrong item. An icon and a localized display name can help build that illusion.
This does not mean desktop.ini has suddenly become a dramatic super-vulnerability. It means Microsoft is treating shell metadata from uncertain origins as something that should not automatically participate in the user interface. That is a smaller claim, and a more convincing one.
The security industry has learned this lesson repeatedly. Shortcuts, icon handlers, preview panes, document templates, archive metadata, and thumbnail generation have all been abused because the operating system tries to be helpful before the user has made a fully informed trust decision. Windows Explorer is especially sensitive because it sits at the intersection of storage, identity, habit, and muscle memory.
The June 2026 hardening follows that same logic. If a desktop.ini file arrives from the internet, from a remote source that Windows does not classify as trusted, or from a network path outside the expected intranet or trusted zone, Explorer may decline to process it. The file can remain present. The folder can remain accessible. The customization simply stops being honored.
For years, users have mostly encountered Mark of the Web as an annoyance. A downloaded file is blocked. A script refuses to run. A document opens with restrictions. Administrators have had to understand it because it affects deployment, scripting, and Office security, but many ordinary users know it only as a mysterious reason Windows distrusts something they intentionally downloaded.
KB5094126 brings that provenance logic into a highly visible shell customization path. A desktop.ini file in a downloaded archive may be perfectly legitimate, but if Windows sees it as internet-originated and untrusted, Explorer may no longer use it to draw the folder differently. That is consistent with modern Windows security posture: origin matters, even when content looks benign.
The awkward part is that users experience this as a visual regression, not as a security warning. Windows does not necessarily say, “This folder customization was ignored because the instruction file came from an untrusted source.” It simply shows the default folder icon. For security engineers, that is a boundary being enforced. For everyone else, it looks like Explorer forgot how to dress itself.
This is where Microsoft’s communication problem becomes technical debt in its own right. A trust decision that surfaces as a cosmetic defect is still a user experience problem, even when the underlying security rationale is sound. Windows needs to harden old behaviors, but it also needs to explain when hardening is the reason familiar behavior changed.
That distinction will save help desks time. A user who sees translated folder names disappear may assume an application reverted language settings, a sync client mangled a repository, or a deployment package lost resources. In many cases, none of that happened. Windows is showing the raw folder identity because it declined to apply a display layer.
The same applies to custom icons. A folder that reverts to the default icon is not necessarily missing its icon file. The icon file may still be present, and the desktop.ini file may still contain the relevant IconFile and IconIndex entries. The difference is that Explorer no longer considers that instruction trustworthy in its current context.
This distinction is especially important in environments where presentation carries operational meaning. A legal department might use custom folder names to distinguish localized document sets. A software vendor might ship sample projects with icons that indicate platform or build stage. A school or hospital might use customized network folders to reduce confusion for nontechnical users.
In those cases, “cosmetic” does not mean irrelevant. It means the failure mode is indirect. People may not lose files, but they may lose confidence in the structure around those files. That can create support tickets, duplicate work, or risky attempts to “fix” what was actually a policy change.
Enterprise environments are different because they accumulate shell assumptions over time. Network shares are not just storage locations; they are workflows. Department drives, redirected folders, DFS namespaces, WebDAV paths, intranet portals, software depots, and imaging shares all build user habits around the way folders appear.
If those locations are not classified the way Windows expects, the desktop.ini hardening can expose a misalignment between organizational trust and Windows trust. The company may consider a share internal and safe. Windows may not, depending on zone mapping, access method, path, policy, and provenance metadata. The result is a classic enterprise Windows problem: the human organization’s mental model does not match the platform’s enforcement model.
Administrators should resist the temptation to treat this as just another Explorer annoyance to suppress globally. Microsoft’s recommended direction is to define trusted internal sources properly, not to throw away the protection everywhere. That means reviewing intranet zone classification, Trusted Sites configuration where appropriate, Group Policy behavior, and the paths through which users receive packaged folders.
The hard part is not the registry or policy mechanics. The hard part is inventory. Many organizations do not know where they depend on desktop.ini until those customizations vanish. That is how legacy convenience features become operational dependencies: slowly, invisibly, and without a ticket number.
But the existence of a compatibility switch does not make it the best first move. Reverting behavior globally restores the convenience and restores the risk. It also delays the necessary work of identifying which sources should actually be trusted and which should not.
A better response is narrower. If a desktop.ini file came from a known internal package repository, and the path is part of a managed deployment flow, classify that source accordingly. If a folder came from the internet, leave the new behavior alone unless there is a deliberate reason to unblock it. That keeps the hardening meaningful while reducing false friction in known-good environments.
For individual files marked as downloaded, removing the Mark of the Web can also restore processing when the file’s origin is known and trusted. That should be treated as a conscious act, not a blanket cleanup command copied into every support thread. The point of provenance metadata is to slow down exactly that kind of unthinking trust transfer.
This is the recurring bargain in Windows administration. Every compatibility workaround solves a visible problem and potentially recreates an invisible one. The most mature response to KB5094126 is not “turn it off,” but “decide where the old behavior is still justified.”
That mundanity is the point. Mature platforms are full of small affordances that attackers can combine with social engineering. The Windows shell was built to make local and networked files feel friendly. Modern security increasingly asks whether that friendliness should be conditional.
desktop.ini sits in the uncomfortable middle. It is not executable in the way a program is executable. It is not content in the way a document is content. It is an instruction to the shell about presentation, and presentation changes user behavior. Microsoft is hardening the interpretation layer rather than the file itself.
This is a reasonable direction, but it also demands better observability. If Windows refuses to process a desktop.ini file because of trust, administrators should be able to see that clearly. Event logs, diagnostics, policy reporting, and Explorer messaging need to keep pace with the hardening. Otherwise, every security improvement becomes another round of folklore-driven troubleshooting.
Windows power users have a long memory for that kind of pain. They remember when an update “broke” something, even if the vendor later explains that it was intentional. Microsoft can win the security argument and still lose goodwill if the system does not make the cause legible.
That context matters because users often judge an update by the first thing they notice after reboot. If the first thing is a broken-looking folder tree, the entire update becomes “the one that broke icons.” That is not technically fair, but it is how trust in updates erodes.
Microsoft’s servicing model compounds the problem. Cumulative updates contain security fixes, quality fixes, and sometimes feature enablement that rolls out over time. The result is a patch that is mandatory in security terms but variable in user-visible behavior. When something changes, users may not know whether they are seeing a bug, a staged feature, a policy change, or a side effect.
In this case, Microsoft has at least clarified that the desktop.ini behavior is intentional. That is better than silence. But the clarification arrives after the user-visible surprise, and it asks administrators to understand a chain of concepts—desktop.ini, zone classification, Mark of the Web, trusted sources, Explorer shell behavior—that many organizations have not had to think about in years.
The optics are therefore predictably strange. Microsoft is making Windows more secure by making some folders look less polished. That is not a sentence any product manager would put on a launch slide, but it is the reality of hardening a platform with three decades of compatibility sediment.
Next, inspect the files without assuming they are gone. The desktop.ini file may be hidden and marked as a system file, so Explorer’s default view may not show it. The referenced icon file or localized resource may still be present. The shell may simply be refusing to apply the instruction.
Then look at provenance. Was the folder downloaded as a ZIP from the internet? Was it copied from a WebDAV location? Did a sync tool preserve Mark of the Web on extracted content? Did a packaging system move files through an HTTP-based path before depositing them on a share? Those details are often more important than the folder’s final location.
Finally, decide whether the source deserves trust. That decision should be made at the repository, share, or deployment-channel level where possible, not by randomly unblocking files after users complain. If an internal software distribution share is trusted, make Windows understand that. If a random download is merely familiar-looking, leave it constrained.
This is where endpoint security and desktop engineering meet. The policy should preserve user productivity without teaching Windows to trust every presentation hint it encounters. That balance is dull, but it is exactly the work that prevents small legacy features from becoming useful attacker tools.
That shift gives administrators a clear checklist, even if Microsoft could have made the transition easier to understand.
Microsoft Turns a Cosmetic File Into a Trust Boundary
The most Windows thing about this story is that the visible symptom looks trivial. A folder that used to carry a custom icon becomes a plain yellow folder. A localized display name gives way to the literal directory name underneath. Nothing seems broken enough to trigger alarms, but enough changes that users notice.That is exactly why this update matters. Windows has spent decades teaching people to trust its visual language: icons, friendly names, folder templates, shell overlays, and localized labels all signal meaning before anyone opens a file. The June 2026 change says that some of those signals are no longer acceptable unless Windows can establish where they came from.
KB5094126 is the Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2 cumulative security update for June 2026, and the desktop.ini hardening is only one item in a broader patch. But it is the item most likely to look like a regression on a normal desktop. Security fixes are usually invisible until they fail; this one announces itself by making familiar folders look unfamiliar.
Microsoft’s bet is that a small amount of visual disruption is worth the reduction in ambiguity. That is a defensible call, but it also exposes how much legacy Windows behavior still depends on old shell mechanisms that were designed for convenience long before modern download provenance, browser zones, and endpoint security policy became central to daily computing.
The Old Shell Trick Still Shapes the Modern Desktop
The desktop.ini file is not new, obscure malware magic, or an experimental Windows 11 feature. It is an old shell customization mechanism that lets a folder carry instructions about how Explorer should present it. A folder can use desktop.ini to define a custom icon, set an information tip, control some display behavior, or show a localized name instead of the raw folder name on disk.That difference between name on disk and name on screen is the heart of the issue. Explorer is not merely listing directories like a terminal command. It is interpreting metadata and presentation hints, then turning the file system into a human-readable interface. desktop.ini is one of the ways that interpretation happens.
For most home users, the mechanism appears indirectly. Extracted theme packs, software bundles, portable app folders, language-specific resources, and downloaded archive structures may include these files. Users may never open or edit desktop.ini themselves, but they can still notice when Windows stops honoring it.
For administrators, desktop.ini is often part of the scenery. Shared template folders, redirected user folders, software distribution trees, departmental repositories, and localized enterprise images can all depend on shell presentation. A custom icon may not be mission-critical, but it can be a meaningful visual cue in a support script, onboarding share, or regulated document structure.
That is why calling the issue “missing icons” undersells it. The update changes whether Explorer trusts a set of instructions that can alter what users think they are looking at. A vanished icon is the visible artifact of a deeper policy decision.
The Threat Is Not the Text File, It Is the User’s Assumption
desktop.ini is, in ordinary form, a text file. That fact invites the obvious objection: why harden the handling of something so small and apparently harmless? The answer is that Windows shell presentation is never just presentation. It is part of the system’s trust theater.Attackers do not need every trick to execute code directly to make it useful. Sometimes they need a folder to look like something it is not, to inherit the visual identity of a trusted location, or to nudge a user into opening the wrong item. An icon and a localized display name can help build that illusion.
This does not mean desktop.ini has suddenly become a dramatic super-vulnerability. It means Microsoft is treating shell metadata from uncertain origins as something that should not automatically participate in the user interface. That is a smaller claim, and a more convincing one.
The security industry has learned this lesson repeatedly. Shortcuts, icon handlers, preview panes, document templates, archive metadata, and thumbnail generation have all been abused because the operating system tries to be helpful before the user has made a fully informed trust decision. Windows Explorer is especially sensitive because it sits at the intersection of storage, identity, habit, and muscle memory.
The June 2026 hardening follows that same logic. If a desktop.ini file arrives from the internet, from a remote source that Windows does not classify as trusted, or from a network path outside the expected intranet or trusted zone, Explorer may decline to process it. The file can remain present. The folder can remain accessible. The customization simply stops being honored.
Mark of the Web Moves From Browser Nuisance to Explorer Policy
The phrase that matters here is Mark of the Web. Windows uses this metadata to record that a file came from the internet or another less-trusted zone. It is the same broad trust concept behind prompts, SmartScreen behavior, macro blocking decisions, and other “this came from somewhere else” friction points.For years, users have mostly encountered Mark of the Web as an annoyance. A downloaded file is blocked. A script refuses to run. A document opens with restrictions. Administrators have had to understand it because it affects deployment, scripting, and Office security, but many ordinary users know it only as a mysterious reason Windows distrusts something they intentionally downloaded.
KB5094126 brings that provenance logic into a highly visible shell customization path. A desktop.ini file in a downloaded archive may be perfectly legitimate, but if Windows sees it as internet-originated and untrusted, Explorer may no longer use it to draw the folder differently. That is consistent with modern Windows security posture: origin matters, even when content looks benign.
The awkward part is that users experience this as a visual regression, not as a security warning. Windows does not necessarily say, “This folder customization was ignored because the instruction file came from an untrusted source.” It simply shows the default folder icon. For security engineers, that is a boundary being enforced. For everyone else, it looks like Explorer forgot how to dress itself.
This is where Microsoft’s communication problem becomes technical debt in its own right. A trust decision that surfaces as a cosmetic defect is still a user experience problem, even when the underlying security rationale is sound. Windows needs to harden old behaviors, but it also needs to explain when hardening is the reason familiar behavior changed.
The Update Does Not Delete Data, and That Distinction Matters
The most important practical point is that KB5094126 does not remove the affected folders, corrupt their contents, or lock users out of files. The change is about whether Explorer evaluates the presentation instructions in desktop.ini. The directory structure remains what it was.That distinction will save help desks time. A user who sees translated folder names disappear may assume an application reverted language settings, a sync client mangled a repository, or a deployment package lost resources. In many cases, none of that happened. Windows is showing the raw folder identity because it declined to apply a display layer.
The same applies to custom icons. A folder that reverts to the default icon is not necessarily missing its icon file. The icon file may still be present, and the desktop.ini file may still contain the relevant IconFile and IconIndex entries. The difference is that Explorer no longer considers that instruction trustworthy in its current context.
This distinction is especially important in environments where presentation carries operational meaning. A legal department might use custom folder names to distinguish localized document sets. A software vendor might ship sample projects with icons that indicate platform or build stage. A school or hospital might use customized network folders to reduce confusion for nontechnical users.
In those cases, “cosmetic” does not mean irrelevant. It means the failure mode is indirect. People may not lose files, but they may lose confidence in the structure around those files. That can create support tickets, duplicate work, or risky attempts to “fix” what was actually a policy change.
Enterprise IT Gets the Pain First, Because It Has the Most Old Assumptions
Home users will notice this when a downloaded package, mod collection, archive, theme folder, or localized bundle suddenly looks plainer than before. The fix may be as simple as accepting that the folders still work or obtaining the package from a more trusted channel. Irritating, yes. Catastrophic, usually not.Enterprise environments are different because they accumulate shell assumptions over time. Network shares are not just storage locations; they are workflows. Department drives, redirected folders, DFS namespaces, WebDAV paths, intranet portals, software depots, and imaging shares all build user habits around the way folders appear.
If those locations are not classified the way Windows expects, the desktop.ini hardening can expose a misalignment between organizational trust and Windows trust. The company may consider a share internal and safe. Windows may not, depending on zone mapping, access method, path, policy, and provenance metadata. The result is a classic enterprise Windows problem: the human organization’s mental model does not match the platform’s enforcement model.
Administrators should resist the temptation to treat this as just another Explorer annoyance to suppress globally. Microsoft’s recommended direction is to define trusted internal sources properly, not to throw away the protection everywhere. That means reviewing intranet zone classification, Trusted Sites configuration where appropriate, Group Policy behavior, and the paths through which users receive packaged folders.
The hard part is not the registry or policy mechanics. The hard part is inventory. Many organizations do not know where they depend on desktop.ini until those customizations vanish. That is how legacy convenience features become operational dependencies: slowly, invisibly, and without a ticket number.
The Escape Hatch Is Real, but It Is the Wrong Default
Microsoft reportedly allows administrators to restore the previous behavior through policy. That is unsurprising; Windows has to give enterprise IT a way to preserve compatibility when a security hardening collides with production workflows. A switch exists because the installed base is messy.But the existence of a compatibility switch does not make it the best first move. Reverting behavior globally restores the convenience and restores the risk. It also delays the necessary work of identifying which sources should actually be trusted and which should not.
A better response is narrower. If a desktop.ini file came from a known internal package repository, and the path is part of a managed deployment flow, classify that source accordingly. If a folder came from the internet, leave the new behavior alone unless there is a deliberate reason to unblock it. That keeps the hardening meaningful while reducing false friction in known-good environments.
For individual files marked as downloaded, removing the Mark of the Web can also restore processing when the file’s origin is known and trusted. That should be treated as a conscious act, not a blanket cleanup command copied into every support thread. The point of provenance metadata is to slow down exactly that kind of unthinking trust transfer.
This is the recurring bargain in Windows administration. Every compatibility workaround solves a visible problem and potentially recreates an invisible one. The most mature response to KB5094126 is not “turn it off,” but “decide where the old behavior is still justified.”
Explorer Is Becoming Less Naive, One Legacy Feature at a Time
There is a broader pattern here. Microsoft has spent the last several years tightening Windows around old trust shortcuts: internet-marked Office files, unsigned scripts, vulnerable drivers, kernel attack surface, credential handling, and Secure Boot certificate updates. Some changes are dramatic. Others, like this one, are almost comically mundane.That mundanity is the point. Mature platforms are full of small affordances that attackers can combine with social engineering. The Windows shell was built to make local and networked files feel friendly. Modern security increasingly asks whether that friendliness should be conditional.
desktop.ini sits in the uncomfortable middle. It is not executable in the way a program is executable. It is not content in the way a document is content. It is an instruction to the shell about presentation, and presentation changes user behavior. Microsoft is hardening the interpretation layer rather than the file itself.
This is a reasonable direction, but it also demands better observability. If Windows refuses to process a desktop.ini file because of trust, administrators should be able to see that clearly. Event logs, diagnostics, policy reporting, and Explorer messaging need to keep pace with the hardening. Otherwise, every security improvement becomes another round of folklore-driven troubleshooting.
Windows power users have a long memory for that kind of pain. They remember when an update “broke” something, even if the vendor later explains that it was intentional. Microsoft can win the security argument and still lose goodwill if the system does not make the cause legible.
KB5094126 Is Bigger Than Folder Icons, Which Is Why the Optics Are Awkward
KB5094126 is not a single-purpose patch for desktop.ini. It is the June 2026 cumulative security update for Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2, and it includes security fixes along with improvements carried forward from the previous optional preview. It also participates in Microsoft’s broader current work around Windows servicing, including Secure Boot certificate transition efforts and gradual feature rollout behavior.That context matters because users often judge an update by the first thing they notice after reboot. If the first thing is a broken-looking folder tree, the entire update becomes “the one that broke icons.” That is not technically fair, but it is how trust in updates erodes.
Microsoft’s servicing model compounds the problem. Cumulative updates contain security fixes, quality fixes, and sometimes feature enablement that rolls out over time. The result is a patch that is mandatory in security terms but variable in user-visible behavior. When something changes, users may not know whether they are seeing a bug, a staged feature, a policy change, or a side effect.
In this case, Microsoft has at least clarified that the desktop.ini behavior is intentional. That is better than silence. But the clarification arrives after the user-visible surprise, and it asks administrators to understand a chain of concepts—desktop.ini, zone classification, Mark of the Web, trusted sources, Explorer shell behavior—that many organizations have not had to think about in years.
The optics are therefore predictably strange. Microsoft is making Windows more secure by making some folders look less polished. That is not a sentence any product manager would put on a launch slide, but it is the reality of hardening a platform with three decades of compatibility sediment.
The Right Fix Starts With Classifying Sources, Not Chasing Icons
The best troubleshooting path begins by confirming scope. If folders on a local, long-standing internal share lost custom icons after installing the June 2026 security update, administrators should check whether Windows classifies that location as intranet or trusted. If only downloaded archives are affected, the behavior may be exactly what Microsoft intended.Next, inspect the files without assuming they are gone. The desktop.ini file may be hidden and marked as a system file, so Explorer’s default view may not show it. The referenced icon file or localized resource may still be present. The shell may simply be refusing to apply the instruction.
Then look at provenance. Was the folder downloaded as a ZIP from the internet? Was it copied from a WebDAV location? Did a sync tool preserve Mark of the Web on extracted content? Did a packaging system move files through an HTTP-based path before depositing them on a share? Those details are often more important than the folder’s final location.
Finally, decide whether the source deserves trust. That decision should be made at the repository, share, or deployment-channel level where possible, not by randomly unblocking files after users complain. If an internal software distribution share is trusted, make Windows understand that. If a random download is merely familiar-looking, leave it constrained.
This is where endpoint security and desktop engineering meet. The policy should preserve user productivity without teaching Windows to trust every presentation hint it encounters. That balance is dull, but it is exactly the work that prevents small legacy features from becoming useful attacker tools.
The Yellow Folder Is the Warning Light
The practical lesson of KB5094126 is not that Microsoft hates customization, or that desktop.ini is suddenly dangerous in every context. It is that the shell is now treating origin as part of presentation. A folder’s appearance is no longer just a matter of what instruction file sits inside it.That shift gives administrators a clear checklist, even if Microsoft could have made the transition easier to understand.
- Windows 11 KB5094126 was released on June 9, 2026 for versions 24H2 and 25H2, moving them to builds 26100.8655 and 26200.8655.
- The update can cause custom folder icons and localized folder names to disappear when they depend on desktop.ini files from sources Windows does not trust.
- The affected folders and files are generally not deleted, damaged, or locked; Explorer is declining to apply the display customization.
- Mark of the Web, WebDAV or HTTP-based sources, and network paths outside trusted or intranet classification are among the scenarios administrators should examine.
- The safer remediation is to classify legitimate internal sources as trusted rather than globally restoring the old behavior.
- Users should treat suddenly plain-looking downloaded folders as a trust signal, not merely as an aesthetic downgrade.
References
- Primary source: igor´sLAB
Published: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 04:02:00 GMT
Loading…
www.igorslab.de - Related coverage: allthings.how
KB5094126 for Windows 11 (June 2026): Builds 26200.8655 and 26100.8655
The June Patch Tuesday update brings the Low Latency Profile, Shared Audio, multi-app camera streaming, and the Secure Boot certificate push.allthings.how - Related coverage: windows-faq.de
Windows 11 KB5094126 Update für 24H2 und 25H2 für Secure Boot & Sicherheit - Windows FAQ
Windows 11 KB5094126 bringt Sicherheitsfixes, Secure Boot Änderungen und Fehlerbehebungen für 24H2 und 25H2.www.windows-faq.de - Related coverage: windowscentral.com
“It is intentional” Microsoft says Windows 11’s broken folder icons are by design. Here's what's going on. | Windows Central
Windows 11 changes how folder customizations work, and what looks like a bug is actually a security upgrade.www.windowscentral.com - Related coverage: thewincentral.com
Windows 11 June 2026 Update KB5094126: Download link & What's new - WinCentral
Microsoft rolls out Windows 11 June 2026 update KB5094126 (Builds 26200.8655 and 26100.8655) with Shared Audio, faster performance, improved camera controls, better Windows Search, NPU monitoring upgrades, and important security fixes. - Read in Software updates News on WinCentral
thewincentral.com
- Official source: learn.microsoft.com
Questions about the user folder, custom folders, and desktop.ini after updating KB5094126. - Microsoft Q&A
After updating KB5094126, the "user" folder and "My Favorites" folder changed to English and regular folders. Resetting restored them. Is it mentioned in update KB5094126 [Folder customization] This update introduces a security…learn.microsoft.com
- Related coverage: techtimes.com
Windows 11 June 2026 Update Kills Folder Icons: 23-Year-Old Shell Bug Finally Closed
Windows 11 desktop.ini update June 2026 breaks custom folder icons on network drives — but it is intentional. KB5094126 closes an unchecked-buffer code execution risk in Windows Shell folder parsingwww.techtimes.com - Related coverage: windowsforum.com
June 2026 Windows Update Breaks Custom Folder Icons from desktop.ini | Windows Forum
Microsoft says Windows security updates released on or after June 9, 2026, may stop some custom folder icons and localized folder display names from...windowsforum.com - Official source: catalog.update.microsoft.com
Loading…
catalog.update.microsoft.com - Related coverage: windowscult.com
Windows 11 KB5094126: What’s New and How to Install It
Microsoft has released Windows 11 KB5094126 (Build 26100.8655). Here's what's new, including Low Latency Profile, Shared Audio, June 2026 Patch Tuesday security fixes, and known issues.www.windowscult.com - Related coverage: cyber.gov.au
- Related coverage: archive.decromancer.ca