Out of the Blue

Gosh I remember the days when viruses on the Internet were so uncommon you would actually write back to someone if they sent you one to find out if it was intentional, or to let them know they had a problem. Nowadays, of course, they come flooding in at such a rate it's impossible to do that, even if they did have the proper sender's address (which almost none of them do anymore). Well if things are wild with all this now, I just can't imagine what will happen if the virus mentioned in a Wired article called New Virus Infects Picture Files (thanks [MP] Wolverine [MP]) proliferates.

Link of the Day: Bob Reno's BadJocks.com. Thanks BabyJesus.
Story of the Day: U.S. spy imagery viewed by civilians. Thanks dbodine and Frottage, who adds: "This all could have been prevented had they had used spam encryption."
Weird Science: Tuning in to a deep sea monster. Thanks Bryce Baker.
Wild Science: Extrasolar Planets. "Newfound planetary system has 'hometown' look." Thanks SurlyBitch.
Auction of the Day: Porsche Boxster. Thanks Chris Johnson. So is there more plastic molding on the car, or the presenter?

View : : :
6.
 
Re: Not likely
Jun 14, 2002, 10:16
6.
Re: Not likely Jun 14, 2002, 10:16
Jun 14, 2002, 10:16
 
This virus thing is complete nonsense. Obviously, the person who wrote the article has misunderstood the information he/she was given. JPEG files do not include any kind of active components, no scripts, no executables.

The article is contradicting itself by stating:
In its current form, an infected JPG file cannot infect another computer on its own.

What kind of virus is that if it requires itself to be already installed on a computer in order to infect it? D'Oh?

But Gullotto said there's no reason a virus writer couldn't make the picture itself able to infect other computers.

Apart from the picture being completely passive piece of data, that is...

Fully automatic backups with Ocster Backup Pro 3
http://www.ocster.com
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
2.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
5.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
4.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@208.3
 6.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
  Re: Not likely
10.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@62.254
3.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@204.164
7.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
8.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
11.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@216.173
12.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@62.254
16.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
18.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@24.162
20.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
21.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@62.254
22.
Jun 15, 2002Jun 15 2002
anon@194.82
9.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
13.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@212.76
14.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
19.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
15.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002
anon@198.144
17.
Jun 14, 2002Jun 14 2002