[svlug] LoveLetter reporting -- Microsoft, not computer, virus

saeedt talebbeik saeedt at ix.netcom.com
Thu May 4 22:45:42 PDT 2000


Here is an article about the last point that you raised.
Some people in the industry are indeed saying that enough is
enough and something has to be done about those security holes.
The reaction from the vendor that is criticized in this article is
so predictable.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1816987.html

  ST

Rick Kwan wrote:
> 
> (I think I just let a message thru with a null body... sorry
> about that.)
> 
> I have to admit to a certain amount of glee when someone sends me
> a message saying, "DON'T OPEN THAT MAIL!"  I write back and say,
> "Sorry.  I don't run Windows; I'm immune to this virus."
> 
> We've probably had this thread before, but given the questions
> posed we probably should do it again.  So let me play devil's
> advocate for a moment.
> 
>   * What stops someone from writing a virus that attacks a
>     mailer (e.g., Netscape) on a UNIX/Linux system?  Couldn't someone
>     just as easily read the address book there and propagate
>     the attack?  Isn't it just a case of Linux systems not being
>     so widespread?
> 
>   * Can't a virus wipe out a hard drive on a Linux system just as
>     easily as a Windows box?  (Explain this to a non-computer type.)
> 
>   * Given the gravity of the attack, why don't the computer security
>     folks just come out and say, "This software architecture is
>     poorly conceived; Windows needs to be fixed."?  I have yet to
>     see this particular statement.  (This one actually bothers me,
>     especially after the "Linux users are sloppy" discussion.)
> 
> --Rick Kwan
>   rick.kwan at lightsaber.com
> 
> Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs at quiotix.com> wrote:
> > When contacting the press via legacy technologies here are a couple of
> > issue to suggest they investigate:
> >
> > 1. Why, despite multiple occurances of such viruses, does Microsoft
> > refuse to remove the ill-conceived and poorly designed "features" which
> > allow such viruses to exist?
> >
> > 2. Why, despite having caused, on multiple occasions, at least hundreds
> > of millions of dollars in damages, including to innocent third parties
> > not even using Microsoft products, shouldn't Outlook and Exchange be
> > considered "defective products"?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/mailman/listinfo/svlug





More information about the svlug mailing list