John,
by the time these announcements are SENT, the new virus signatures are
already out.
I'm actually LESS concerned about .EXE files that are recognizable as .EXE
files - people seem to be VERY aware of the need NOT to run .EXE files. I'm
ONLY concerned about disguised .EXE files (that use the
of users get
fooled and double click thinking it is a Word file.
Just curious..
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.Virus] New
At one point you talked about detection of double file extensions. Was
that ever implemented?
It's a good idea, but tough to implement properly. The problem is with
filenames such as "www.yahoo.com.url", and "spreadsheet.2002.nov.xls". So
adding such detection would get a bit complicated.
Wouldn't the double extension just get blocked by the exe rule?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus] New Virus: Holar
>At o
Wouldn't the double extension just get blocked by the exe rule?
It would, if you block .exe files (which many ISPs can't do, for
example). For people that don't block .exe files, the "*.*.exe" blocking
could be useful.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viru
Is the syntax then?
BANEXT *.*.exe
Doug
>Wouldn't the double extension just get blocked by the exe rule?
It would, if you block .exe files (which many ISPs can't do, for
example). For people that don't block .exe files, the "*.*.exe" blocking
could be useful.
-
Is the syntax then?
BANEXT *.*.exe
No. That will literally ban E-mails with an extension of "*.*.exe", which
no E-mail will have (since the extension in such a file is actually "exe").
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declu
