home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Hacker 2
/
HACKER2.mdf
/
virus
/
virusl2
/
virusl2.93
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-01-03
|
5KB
|
134 lines
VIRUS-L Digest Wednesday, 19 Apr 1989 Volume 2 : Issue 93
Today's Topics:
Administrative request to students
Flushot+ 1.52 (PC)
RE: Review of THE COMPUTER VIRUS CRISIS
Virus-handling Policies or Procedures at Mainframe Sites?
CheckSum Methods of Virus Detection (PC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 16:50:45 EDT
From: luken@ubu.cc.lehigh.edu (Kenneth R. van Wyk)
Subject: Administrative request to students
With the end of the semester approaching (already?!), I'd like to ask
all student subscribers who don't plan to be around over the summer to
unsubscribe from VIRUS-L before they leave for summer break. It will
save me a great deal of effort.
To unsubscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LEHIIBM1.BITNET (*NOT* to
VIRUS-L) saying "SIGNOFF VIRUS-L". That's all there is to it.
Thanks in advance,
Ken
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 11:25:50 CDT
From: James Ford <JFORD1@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject: Flushot+ 1.52 (PC)
You say that the current version of Flushot+ is 1.52? Thats interesting,
because I just downloaded a file called FLUSHOT2.ARC. One wonders what
I've got.....(grin) If you know, then let me in on it.... :-)
I keep trying to call his [Ross Greenberg's] BBS, but can never get a
connection. I get connected, but thats all. No "Enter your name...."
etc. Perhaps someone can tell me my problem? I'm calling from an
14.4K HST, 8N1, ANSI emulation and have (for his board) the baud rate
at 2400, &M0 and &K0.
James
Disclaimer: I think, therefore I am. I think.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 01:32:55 -0400
From: Joe Sieczkowski <joes@scarecrow.csee.Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: RE: Review of THE COMPUTER VIRUS CRISIS
>A more serious example is the suggestion that you can be exposed to a
>virus if you are on a net even if you practice "safe hex." While you
>may be exposed to a worm program if your computer is networked,
>viruses are not related to computer networks at all. A virus is a
>program that reproduces by modifying existing programs and files. A
>worm is a program that replicates itself through a network. The
>distinction can blur at times, and the term virus has been misused in
>the media so much that its technical meaning is seriously compromised
>(the Internet worm was originally reported as the Internet virus).
>
>Mark Paulk
Be careful here... "On a net" can mean various things. Let's suppose
your PC is NFSed to some server that contains executable utilities.
Just because you practice "safe hex", it doesn't mean the guy who runs
the server does. Hence, a utility that's a virus on the server can
infect your personal utilities.
Not only that, viruses can infect programs across networks as well as
worms can propogate through them. The Internet situation was a worm
because the program propagated through Internet from machine to
machine. It was not a worm merely because it existed on a network.
The program was self-contained and used utilies such as sendmail and
finger to spread. If the program had modified the actual sendmail and
fingerd executables in such a way that they would in turn modify other
machines S&F executables, then it could be called a virus.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 10:36 EDT
From: Roman Olynyk Information Services <CC011054@WVNVAXA.WVNET.EDU>
Subject: Virus-handling Policies or Procedures at Mainframe Sites?
Our network node, a mixture of IBM & DEC mainframes, is currently
working on a procedure dealing with what should be done if a "virus"
is discovered on one of our systems. Do any other sites have a
similar document that they could share with us? Any suggestions will
be appreciated.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 13:38:47 EDT
From: Peter Jaspers-Fayer <SOFPJF@UOGUELPH.BITNET>
Subject: CheckSum Methods of Virus Detection (PC)
We have evaluated CHECKOUT, a fairly comprehensive and carefully
thought-out method of detecting viral enfection by performing a
sequence of pseudo random-block checksums on the files that you
specify. It comes with documentation and sample EXECs that show you
how to protect the program itself from "CHECKOUT-aware" viruses. So
far so good, BUT:
No check is made of the BOOT sector. Which brings me to the following
questions:
1) Does anyone have a similar program that DOES checksum the BOOT sector in
several sections?
2) (this may be scatterbrained on my part, but) Is there a robust and
'proper' way of overlaying a read-only, "invisible" file over top of
the BOOT sector? I've had a hack at this myself with a disk editor
(figuring I could write the code in C later, if I can just see HOW to
string things together...)
Answers to either, and even explanations as to why I'm thinking along
the wrong lines completely will be appreciated.
/PJ
-------------------------------
'This system sure is user friendy!'
DMSSTT062E INVALID CHARACTER ''' IN FILEID ''THIS MODULE'.
------------------------------
End of VIRUS-L Digest
*********************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253