inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 18:06 > To: Matt Rogghe > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: > > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Matt Rogghe wrote: > > > short while back and again yesterday and was discouraged to > note that not a > > single one would identify the Kournikova virus unless you > had updated the > > software with a patch released sometime yesterday.... > > I block EVERY vbs attachment, regardless of its content. I have never > ever seen a valid reason for sending a vbs attachment. Can > anyone think > of one? The same goes for other dangerous extensions: .js, > .vbe. etc... > Sure. Hey Ray, can you send me that script you told me about that I can use to push out an updated DAT file to my clients who haven't been configured to download them from the server automatically. While you are at it, can you also send the one that will configure the automatic download so I don't need to mess with this in the future. Oh yeah, and send me the one that will push the extra.dat out so that when the next big bad evil worm comes out I can proactively push the update, instead of needing to wait for the users to logon or for the scheduled update period to timeout. Thanks. > If you really need to send it that bad, send it as part of the message > body, not an attachment. Then if the user copies it to a > .vbs file and > runs it.....well...i can't help that. > I agree, and this is actually a very good alternative IMHO. The only catch would be those Virus scanners that key on words, and might think the .txt file (for example) is a virus based solely on the contents of the attachment. - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
