[4570] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Intel & Symantec v. ZKS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Sommerfeld)
Thu Apr 29 18:05:22 1999
To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Message from Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:40:06 +0200." <199904292040.WAA25584@mail.replay.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:53:23 -0400
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
> > Symantec agreed that the program fit its definition of a type of malicious
> > program known as a Trojan horse, so it included the software in its
> > continually updated list of dangerous programs, which include viruses,
> > that cause warnings to pop up on its customers' computers.
>
> In fact, this is perfectly reasonable on the part of Symantec, and if I
> had a PIII I would absolutely want my virus detection software to catch
> code which enables the serial number. Any such action on the part of
> downloaded code is malicious and not in my interests, and anything the
> software can do to prevent it is good.
True, but a question well worth asking is "why doesn't antivirus
software assume that ActiveX controls are malicious until proven
otherwise"?
- Bill
