Hello Kurt:
06 Dec 96 (at 10:51), Kurt Wismer wrote to Manuel Llorens:
 ML>> since I do not  distribute any code -, and in my opinion,
 ML>> nowadays antivirus are only useful with old viruses... and I
 KW> you must be relatively new to the scene... scanners ALWAYS had
 Not really.
 KW> difficulty with new viruses... simple reason, they looked for known
 KW> viruses, and new viruses aren't known yet...
 Don't want to go into the same discussion... I know that, but AV use to say 
they are prepared against new viruses... but you're right, the mind new 
viruses using old techniques ;-)
 KW> theres been enough incidents in the past of virus writers reverse
 KW> engineering anti-virus products that it has become unwise for av
 Yes, but there could be general techniques which are not reversible.
 ML>> still has a chance! (I do not say antivirus writers are
 ML>> bad, I say their products are not as good as they use to
 ML>> say).
 KW> thats because of your perspective... you (as a self confessed virus
 KW> writer) have seen how easy it is (relatively) to make a virus that the
 KW> scanners can't detect... however, those viruses aren't a security
 KW> threat to the computing public at large until you release them (and
 Ok, but I could distribute a dangerous virus and many people could be 
affected. The bad thing in that is that they would feel protected by their 
recent AVs, couse their AVs says they are good with new viruses. I think 
that's the real point where you and me dissapoint.
 KW> the new virus is a new release of the scanner may be released anywhere
 KW> from a few days to when the next scheduled release was supposed to
 KW> come out...
 That's really a good thing... AVs (you may notice I'm using 'AVs' as 
antivirus resarchers and as antivirus programs) are really well organized. 
But they create a false secure feeling in their users.
 KW> from a regular users perspective though, scanners are better than
 KW> ever... they detect a lot more viruses than they used to, they have
 Of course, they are really fast, and has a lot of precision, that's right.
 ML>> And again sorry about my numb English... not as bad as my code!,
 KW> you're english is fine, i can (i think) understand it fairly easily...
 Thanks
 KW> i hope none of my supposedly fluent english was over your (or
 KW> anyone elses) head...  and welcome back, btw - though i don't actually
 KW> know if i remember you specifically (i do recall a manuel but i'm not
 KW> sure of the last name)...
 It was last summer in this echo area... but better if you have forgotten the 
discussion... I'd like to do the same.
Greets :)
  Patuel, Pilgrim Cosysop of EDiSoN'S TeMPLe
  patuel@temple.subred.org * no files please
... En la Naturaleza nada hay superfluo.
--- FMail 1.02
---------------