Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: E-Mail viruses
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:32:54 +1300
starwars <nobody () tatooine homelinux net> to Curt Purdy:
Methinks you misunderstand. Only the proprietary extension, i.e. .inc or .xyz or .whatever, would be allowed through, and since virus writers would never use this extension, it would eliminate ALL viruses at the gateway. The nice thing about this approach is that it completely eliminates the need for any anti-virus on the mail server since all virus attachments are automatically dropped without the need for scanning. Quite a simple, yet elegant solution, if I do say so myself.Elegant, indeed. Have an MCSE on that. I wonder why virus writers didn't think of that yet.
What makes you think they haven't? Oh -- and why (depending on the OS) do you think it is even necessary to include the step involving instructions to _rename_ the attachment to a .EXE extension?? ... Of course, for folk with _proper_ incoming filetype filters, the attachment's (suggested) extension in the MIME headers (and its suggested type in the same) is irrelevant. It has long been known that Windows file-typing is dependent on way more things than just a file's extension (though Microsoft is rather reluctant to advertise this fact or even to explain all the ways that file-typing is achieved -- the cynics reckon this is because the folk who wrote the mish-mash of code that passes as an OS actually have no collective idea of how all the inter-related bit-parts can inetrract so cannot produce a definitive list; the less polite explanation questions their collective intellect and the effect the historical domination of the marketing objective of "make it work regardless" over any other programming and development culture (such as "do it well") has had). Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses, (continued)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Ron DuFresne (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Curt Purdy (Mar 05)
- Re: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Curt Purdy (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Ron DuFresne (Mar 05)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Cael Abal (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Curt Purdy (Mar 05)
- Re: E-Mail viruses Cael Abal (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Curt Purdy (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Chris DeVoney (Mar 05)
- Re: E-Mail viruses starwars (Mar 05)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Nick FitzGerald (Mar 06)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 08)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Nick FitzGerald (Mar 08)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Curt Purdy (Mar 09)
- Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Ron DuFresne (Mar 05)
- Re: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses gadgeteer (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Patrick Nolan (Mar 05)
- Re: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Nick FitzGerald (Mar 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] (Mar 07)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Nick FitzGerald (Mar 07)
- Re: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Jorge Daza (Mar 07)
- Re: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses Nick FitzGerald (Mar 07)