RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses

["Curt Purdy" <purdy () tecman com>]

Paul Szabo wrote:
> Yes, it eliminates a large class of viruses. But, it would not do
> anything to "local" attacks (a virus modified specifically to handle
> your particular setup; and if it becomes widely used then "real"
> viruses will also do the same).
>
> Also it does nothing to viruses that do not use attachments: attacks
> on a "Subject:" buffer overflow, or a virus delivery via the web with
> a link or "Content-type: message/external-body".

This was meant to deal only with email virus attachments that are currently
dealt with by email AV servers.

As for the first point, technically true, but highly unlikely as long as
everyone who implements this strategy don't use the same extension.  If you
pick a relatively random sequence, a.k.a as in .dps for my company, you
would not be the target of a virus, whose purpose is to infect as many
systems as possible.

Curt Purdy CISSP, GSEC, MCSE+I, CNE, CCDA
Information Security Engineer
DP Solutions

----------------------------------------

If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked.
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html