[4578] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Intel & Symantec v. ZKS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alano@summanulla.pcx.ncd.com)
Fri Apr 30 18:32:58 1999
From: alano@summanulla.pcx.ncd.com
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>, cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:53:23 EDT."
<199904292053.UAA25423@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:45:20 -0700
> > > 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"?
Because every copy of Win98 would be flagged as being totally ridden with hostile trojans and viruses. (I know. "And your point being?")
