On Dec 6, 2007 1:08 AM, silky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2007 4:40 PM, Dude VanWinkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2007 12:26 AM, Andrew Haninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 5, 2007 9:20 PM, Dude VanWinkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I didn't have time to do an analysis of it, but virustotal didn't pick > > > > up squat. > > > http://www.virustotal.com/resultado.html?0b6fa3cb50c94167a6ab4139b4a04274 > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > Ohh they got better.. > > oddly, though, they are using md5 as their hashing/identification mechanism.
But they did add a cool feature where if you submit a file (assuming the previous owner didn't check the "dont share" and "encrypt" options) and its been scanned before, you can look at the original assessment, or get a new scan. Of course you are correct in your criticism in the fact if virustotal bases their file sigs on md5, this might be useless even now. -PJ errr JP _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
