On 28/02/00 Bernie wrote:
>J J Young wrote:
>>The Kak worm is transmitted by HTML mail and only affects 32-bit Windows.
>
>I seriously doubt that this can in fact be true. It may be that it's an
>ActiveX script that can affect M$ Outlook, is that what you are referring
>to? HTML has the same chances of transporting a virus as opening an
>ASCII file in an editor (such as notepad).
-- I don't particularly care!
Because:
a) It's considered benign
b) It doesn't affect the OS I use
c) I'm not a sys admin or anti-virus professional
d) It's occurrence has been of net benefit to me
e) There are more important things to be concerned about.
I am sure anyone with sufficient interest can do their own research.
Here are some pointers (neither of which I've checked):
http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/ms99-032.asp
http://www.sprufc.co.uk/kak.htm
>only affected people that were stupid enough to use M$ Outlook
>despite all the warnings that tend to come on a regular basis.
-- Yep, the combination of 32-bit Windows with Outlook is, I think
the necessary combination. But it's Windows that gets the infection.
If it is an ActiveX script it still needs the package of an HTML-format
mail. "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases" -- the general population
is aware of the delivery-mode and doesn't look at the microscopic level.
>Besides, isn't the name for these things "worms"?
-- That term was used (3rd word you quoted). I suppose if you want
to get a "normal" person to use AV you should liberally use the term
"virus" rather than "worm", much like using "hacker" rather than "cracker".
Conversational use of language often seems contrary to the strictly
defined use in science/mathematics/engineering/medicine etc.
Regards,
Jake
