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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

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.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

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.

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.