If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:08:43 -0500, "Rachael Brehm"
wrote: I also received this "Hoax" email with and .exe attachment. However, Norton did not pick up any virus after scanning it. /shrug. I deleted it anyway...but is this also an issue? That Norton does not recognize any virus with this attachment? My virus defs are up to date as well. A little intelligent thought is all that is required. Assume someone writes a virus today, and emails somebody with it. They, being stupid, assume it is from Microsoft and install it. It then begins to propagate around the Internet. After a few thousand infections, somebody decides to send a copy to Symantec or another anti virus vendor. They then analyze it, tell the other vendors, and come out with a new definition for it. If the virus is relatively benign, which most are, they include the update with their weekly patches. If it is something like Melissa, they come out with a patch immediately. Whichever they do, the information about the virus is available on their web site immediately. Now, put yourself in the place of the person who first received it. Being smarter than the average user you deleted it. If it was a virus, and if you were the only one to receive it, nobody would know about it, thus no patch would be made available. Even if you were the hundredth person, or the thousandth, there is no guarantee that the virus is enough of a concern for a company to immediately offer a patch. Literally thousands of new virii appear every week or month, depending on a number of factors. Yet companies update their patches once a week, rarely offering an interim patch. This is because the majority of virii really don't work. Reason, the putzes who write them are incapable little children, probably dropped on their heads by the doctor during birth, with a very, very small penis. You expect them to be able to cause a company to change their patch schedule? (Note: deliberate attempt to anger the little moron putz boys who think they can write code, is in no way meant to annoy normal, functioning citizens) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:08:43 -0500, "Rachael Brehm"
wrote: I also received this "Hoax" email with and .exe attachment. However, Norton did not pick up any virus after scanning it. /shrug. I deleted it anyway...but is this also an issue? That Norton does not recognize any virus with this attachment? My virus defs are up to date as well. A little intelligent thought is all that is required. Assume someone writes a virus today, and emails somebody with it. They, being stupid, assume it is from Microsoft and install it. It then begins to propagate around the Internet. After a few thousand infections, somebody decides to send a copy to Symantec or another anti virus vendor. They then analyze it, tell the other vendors, and come out with a new definition for it. If the virus is relatively benign, which most are, they include the update with their weekly patches. If it is something like Melissa, they come out with a patch immediately. Whichever they do, the information about the virus is available on their web site immediately. Now, put yourself in the place of the person who first received it. Being smarter than the average user you deleted it. If it was a virus, and if you were the only one to receive it, nobody would know about it, thus no patch would be made available. Even if you were the hundredth person, or the thousandth, there is no guarantee that the virus is enough of a concern for a company to immediately offer a patch. Literally thousands of new virii appear every week or month, depending on a number of factors. Yet companies update their patches once a week, rarely offering an interim patch. This is because the majority of virii really don't work. Reason, the putzes who write them are incapable little children, probably dropped on their heads by the doctor during birth, with a very, very small penis. You expect them to be able to cause a company to change their patch schedule? (Note: deliberate attempt to anger the little moron putz boys who think they can write code, is in no way meant to annoy normal, functioning citizens) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:05:23 -0700, "Ken Blake"
wrote: Sorry, I can't tell you how it got past Norton on your machine. But I can tell you that it's well established to be a virus, and that virus checkers have picked it up on many machines. No you can't ken. You have not seen the attachment, you have no clue if it is a new or existing virus. You also have no idea if it did get past Norton or any other anti virus package. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:05:23 -0700, "Ken Blake"
wrote: Sorry, I can't tell you how it got past Norton on your machine. But I can tell you that it's well established to be a virus, and that virus checkers have picked it up on many machines. No you can't ken. You have not seen the attachment, you have no clue if it is a new or existing virus. You also have no idea if it did get past Norton or any other anti virus package. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
network download
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
network download
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:14:13 -0700, "Ken Blake"
wrote: In , Fred wrote: On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:05:23 -0700, "Ken Blake" wrote: Sorry, I can't tell you how it got past Norton on your machine. But I can tell you that it's well established to be a virus, and that virus checkers have picked it up on many machines. No you can't ken. You have not seen the attachment, you have no clue if it is a new or existing virus. You also have no idea if it did get past Norton or any other anti virus package. Are you looking to start a fight with everyone here? Sorry, I won't bite. This isn't about fighting, it is about stating things that are not true. If you can not be factual in your statements then you should take more time before posting. Nothing I said was critical of you, I simply pointer out a fact. There is no way you can identify a virus without seeing it. If you don't know that, then get off the group. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
network download
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:14:13 -0700, "Ken Blake"
wrote: In , Fred wrote: On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:05:23 -0700, "Ken Blake" wrote: Sorry, I can't tell you how it got past Norton on your machine. But I can tell you that it's well established to be a virus, and that virus checkers have picked it up on many machines. No you can't ken. You have not seen the attachment, you have no clue if it is a new or existing virus. You also have no idea if it did get past Norton or any other anti virus package. Are you looking to start a fight with everyone here? Sorry, I won't bite. This isn't about fighting, it is about stating things that are not true. If you can not be factual in your statements then you should take more time before posting. Nothing I said was critical of you, I simply pointer out a fact. There is no way you can identify a virus without seeing it. If you don't know that, then get off the group. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|