Hi Rod.

24-Mar-04 19:09:34, Rod Gasson wrote to All


 RG> GMT From: "Rod Gasson" 

 RG> "Jasen Betts"
 wrote in
 RG> message news:1438464843{at}f1042.n640.z3.ftn...
 >> Hi Rod.
 RG> >
 >> 22-Mar-04 17:15:06, Rod Gasson wrote to All
 RG> > >
 RG>> is, and why they are used, because I can assure you that no one
 RG>> has
 RG> EVER
 RG>> "run" a cookie file under any circumstances
whatsoever. A cookie
 RG>> is nothing more than a simple plain text file. It isn't an
 RG>> executable, it can't be executed, therefore it can never ever
 RG>> cause a virus infection.
 RG> >
 >> well, a cookie is just data associated with a website, there's no
 RG> requirement
 >> that it be stored as a text file. (it has been done differently on
 >> different systems)

 RG> OK, this discussion now has the potential to be endless. Exactly
 RG> what is it that distinguishes "text" from "data" ?

In this context data could be binary,

 RG> The point I was trying to make is that cookies are NOT executable
 RG> files

 a point well made.

 >> >> RG> The only way to get a virus infection is by
actually RUNNING
 >> a >> RG> virus infected executable.
 RG> >
 >> like a spreadsheet or word document...

....

 RG> If you are referring to a secondary infection, ie, if person 'a'
 RG> sends person 'b' a doc file or spreadsheet with the virus already
 RG> embeded, and person 'b' foolishly opens this file without first
 RG> vetting it (thus infecting other files), then I really can't see
 RG> how this is any different than if person 'a' simply sent person
 RG> 'b' the virus executable in the first place.

yeah, those dociuments are effectively executables for virus purposes...

 RG> As I keep saying, viruses don't 'just happen' - it takes user
 RG> input of one sort or another in order for them to spread.

In general yeah,  Microsoft juste relased another patch in attempt to make
that true,

It seems there was some way to get OE to run stuff wiothout asking and
there was no way to block it.

 -=> Bye <=-

---