"Frits Westra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > I was wondering whether anyone has ever received an email > attachment that contained a virus/worm that has damaged a DOS > based system?
I have in the past, back when DOS was a more likely target. I was not INFECTED by it, simply because I was clueful about things then as now. Just as is the case with modern virus variants, you had to be careful about executing unknown programs and the like. The only difference back then was that you had more manual steps to go through (i.e. save the attachment, execute it, etc.) Thinking back, I'd have to say that the DOS virii tended to be quite malicious. The new ones are destructive enough, erasing files and creating havoc in mail and network systems. But I remember Ripper was particularly nasty in DOS. It would load, hide itself in memory, then randomly scramble data being written to disk. It might go undetected for weeks, doing terrible amounts of damage, and inevitably the backup cycle would contain corrupted files if it took too long to spot. Another nasty was the one that would randomly flip bits on the way out the parallel port. Talk about maddening! > All these viruses/worms seem to be targeting Win > platforms? True, but only because those are the most prevalent systems. As Linux has gained popularity, it's been increasingly under attack (though these tend to be more network-based attacks than true "virii"). The same is true of any OS. Indeed, Microsoft's making a big deal about the fact that others are susceptible to attacks as well. If a system is popular, it will inevitably attract attention of this sort. I know some like to think that these attacks are the work of a subculture dedicated to bringing down the Microsoft scourge, but let's face it: The types that attack Windows systems would've been the same lot writing DOS attacks years ago, and will be the same types attacking whatever becomes prevalent in the post-Microsoft world. They're probably the same types that break beer bottles on playground equipment. I suppose there's a good study there. "What is the threshold at which an OS becomes a popular target for attacks?" What we ARE seeing, is at least the "alternative" OS efforts are making strong and often effective strides in reducing the likelihood of a virus being successful, at least in terms of spreading to others. For example, under Linux, Open/Free/NetBSD or most any variant of Unix, if a system owner avoids using root access, even if they're the only user of the system, the effectiveness of such attacks can be minimized considerably. That doesn't mean that the bad guys aren't TRYING though. I wouldn't say that DOS is any more immune to attacks than my old Apple DOS 3.3 system was. I never had an e-mail virus on it, nor a boot-sector virus for that manner. Programs could not terminate and stay resident, so I was immune to stealth viruses. And I haven't heard of a virus targeting Apple DOS 3.3 for YEARS. Yet, somehow, I don't think it's because my beloved old OS is somehow more secure, nor that any of this was by clever design. Anyhow, those are my thoughts. A nice website that contains good info about a variety of flavors of virusen, even for good ol' OS/2, can be found at http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslist.asp . (I have no idea if it's friendly to your favorite browser!) Look through the "Virus Encyclopedia" links. The Virus Constructors page is quite interesting, and shows just how prevalent this problem is. - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
