RK>
  >                                         As for modifying
  > DLL's, no problem there, all one need do is unregister the
  > DLL long enough to modify it then reregister it and no-
  > one's the wiser.
RK>

  And how are you going to "unregister" a DLL ?

RK>
  >                  The file system, sad to say, is easy to
  > trash, easier in fact than that of DOS's FAT system.
RK>

  It's only possible to trash if you are *very* lucky (unlucky), and are
  able to destroy enough information to make it unrecoverable. Otherwise
  CHKDSK /F:3 can bring most of an HPFS partition back to life.

  Heck, CHKDSK /F:3 even works after a FORMAT.

  To make HPFS unrecoverable, you not only have to remove the
  directories, but you also have to trash the bitmaps, trash the
  superblock, and eliminate all of the marker tags that identify
  individual HPFS structures.  To do that, you'd also have to *find*
  them first (the only fixed part of HPFS is the superblock).

  I'd say that it was a lot more difficult to trash HPFS to the point of
  irrecoverability, given how easy it is with FAT (just zap two tables
  that reside in well-known places).

RK>
  > You know exactly where on the disk each and every file is
  > under HPFS
RK>

  If it was that easy, how come HPFS disc doctor programs are so few and
  far between ?

  In reality, the structure of HPFS is a darn sight more complex than
  FAT.  Compare the code to for navigating a BTree (HPFS directories) to
  that for scanning an array (FAT directories).

RK>
  >                                               And yes,
  > since the McAfee scanner's don't detect Frankenstien, I'd
  > have to say there are NO, NONE, ZERO, decent virus
  > scanners for OS/2.
RK>

  You tested both of the other OS/2 A-V products did you ?  Did you
  keep your copy of McAfee up to date, or are you relying on the
  shareware version ?

RK>
  > Just keep in mind that for the most part, virus programmers represent
  > some of the very best programmers, in terms of skills.
RK>

  Paranoia.  Unjustified paranoia at that.  That's the myth that the
  virus writers would like you to believe.  It gives them self-worth.

RK>
  > Keep in mind, that the lack of concern and vision you exhibit in your
  > statements regarding the supposed impossibility of virusi
  > under OS/2 is exactly what was said before the Internet
  > virus, and many other major infestations.
RK>

  It was an worm, not a virus.  And the plural of virus is viruses.

  Incidentally, what was said was not that it was impossible.  What
  actually happened was that the companies responsible for sendmail and
  fingerd failed to patch security holes that they knew about, for the
  simple reason that they didn't think it economically viable for them
  to do so.

RK>
  >                                           Can't happen
  > here, just don't cut it. Someone, sooner than later, will
  > find a way and will do what can't be done.
RK>

  Believe that if you like.  But in two years of publically holding that
  same line (and I've said it enough times and in enough places that I
  expect that at least one virus writer would have felt challenged by
  it), viruses for OS/2 have spectaculary failed to appear.

  So I'm maintaining that line until proven wrong.

  OS/2 viruses would be far too cumbersome and far too visible to be
  viable.  They'd not be able to do half as much damage as their DOS
  counterparts were they to exist anyway.  And the evidence shows that
  they are far too difficult to write for the average virus writer, who
  obviously prefers the ease and lack of protection of DOS.

  > JdeBP <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 2.02