I have it... its extremely obnoxious to get rid of but I refuse to buy
UT Connect... I can also say that I have not been in contact with
SMF for about 2 months... I have been in contact with ESB and
PAI and I know ESB has had problems... the virus (and I can vouch
for this) is exceptionally infectious... my windows directory alone
had 550 incidences... and I backuped my CD on my HD and that had
275 incidences... my machine could be just some weird exception though...
I also know that non Win 95/98 machines can be carriers for this virus
even if they are not affected on the 26th... also if you have problems with
self extracting zip files..."bad header" etc... that was a key symptom on my
computer... I also know that the virus can also contaminate files that
are just merely coppied and not executed... this could require certain
conditions though
At 09:26 AM 7/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Well folks, it's July 26, 1998, and I expect that UT will be in a very
>embarrassing
>position as the spread of the Win32/CIH will be very small. UT has made two
>very big mistakes about this virus:
>
>1. It disclosed information that a lethal virus had infected their
>computers without
>determining how the virus actually spreads. I doubt anyone has taken the
>Win32/CIH and dissected it to see exactly what it does.
>2. It conscientiously worked with only ONE virus-scanning software company
>to detect/remove the CIH virus, which happens to be Dr. Solomon's and
>coincidentally
>part of the UT-Connect software.
>
>As I see it, UT has unresponsibly scared thousands into either purchasing
>UT-Connect
>and/or Dr. Solomons, and cause many local businesses in Austin to shut down
>for the
>day. Don't expect reparation.
>
>Just a shot in the dark, but it seems highly unlikely that all of the SMF
>computers
>could acquire the virus within the period of a month (as the virus is
>probably less than
>a month old since no one has ever heard of it before), especially if the
>computer
>systems (and ideally the boot sector and other information) are completely
>restored
>from a network drive. Perhaps someone working in the SMF implanted the
virus?
>This would at least explain the 100% distribution rate on SMF computers.
>
>If you think you've been had, forward the message.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
