BL> Okay, so you look up the macro and it's called something
BL> harmless, and you open the macro and it's jsut a whole lot of
BL> stuff about formatting (with one unseen line, "shell
BL> c:\cookies\123456.cke") 

DD> I don't have a directory called c:\cookies...

 Gee... that'll trick 'em. That almost as safe as Niel renaming
format.exe.

DD> I don't execute macros in unknown documents. Even if I did, the
DD> "trojan hidden somewhere else" would get caught by the virus
DD> checker when it was loaded for execution (assuming that it was
DD> known by the virus checker). 

 ROFL! Why not assume that it isn't known trhe3 the virus... or even
part of Windows itself? You don't understand the concept of failsafe.
Why not assume that the virus checker iself is the virus? What better
way to crash every computer in France (say) when America invades
France (say)? The CIA activates the hidden cookie, you run your virus
checker... and GOTCHA!

DD> I update my virus checker dat files several time per week.

 Jesus, that's paranoia... and what a great place to put a virus: in
the DAt file. So, there you go... the EXE you say you never run; the
virus checker itself.

 I tried to work out how to make my data, SAFE...100% total safe.
It's not possible. the virus may be part of the backup, but the next
step down in safety is physical separation. I've spent 20 years
accumulating the product I have on this computer (and elsewhere). The
computer has crashed three times in that period and I've never lost a
thing. I always have *two* computers and two hard disks in both, plus
a separate weekly backup on floppy and now flashRAM. I see Wireless
networking another step toward perfection.

 I see a permanent Internet connection as the DEVIL!

Regards,
Bob


 

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5