DD-> RC> If the virus is "looking for a specifc jump sequence" then the virus
  -> RC> is _already_ loaded, and executing.  Now:  How did the virus get
  -> RC> loaded?
DD->        Ok, let's change that. Let's say the "virus" is not executable, 
but
  ->it sits in memory, the viewer (which this "virus" is specifically 
ailored
  ->work with) sees it as a part of itself, like two parts of a whole, or 
ike
  ->plug-in for a browser looking for a stub or jump. It runs that, instead 
f
  ->one on disk, or the one built into the executable later on. Now, the 
"virus
  ->isn't really running, but the program that "sees" the viral code as part 
of
  ->itself is running it. I think this could be possible, if viruses were 
tailo
  ->more specifically to specific programs. With the advent of the net, these
  ->programs (like mIRC, Netscape, IE, and so on) are being proliferated all 
ov
  ->the place, and these intelligent "designer viruses" could then become the
  ->rage.
David.. to be blunt, you can think what you like. It's just that it's
known not to be possible. I think your applying Word and Macro
technology to the situation. If so, there is a difference, Graphic
display programs are not written to excecute code or data. To put is in
other words, there has been a thread going on about "reading" data and
"excecuting" it. You need to remember that there is a difference.
Graphic display programs read data. MS Word excecutes Macros.
If you were leading to the fact that Java or some simalar technology
could wreak havoc then you would be correct. But it would be incorrect
about JPG's or GIF's.
 * OLX 2.1 * Todd Copeland  -  TEAM OS/2
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100
---------------