kxs5829@ultb.UUCP (K.X. Saunders) (10/09/89)
Hi, In reference to the VirusX questions, I'm running VirusX 3.2. In addition to the other problems, it's not updating the "name : count" virus counts at all. Also, on ff175, the release.notes say that virusx 3.1 is supposed to be 11760 bytes long. The included executable is 11948 bytes long. In contrast, virusx 3.2 is only 11896 bytes long. So, what's wrong with this picture? Kyle
tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) (10/10/89)
I heard that one of the versions of VirusX is really a virus so if someone knows which one is the disease and not the cure please let us know. Tim
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (10/11/89)
In article <1370@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: >I heard that one of the versions of VirusX is really a virus so if someone >knows which one is the disease and not the cure please let us know. The fake version is "VirusX 3.3." There is no version 3.3 released by Steve Tibbett. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett - Systems Administrator, Computer Science Department | | The Johns Hopkins University, 34th and Charles Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | BITNET: barrett@jhuvms.bitnet | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
fc@lexicon.com (Frank Cunningham) (10/11/89)
In article <1370@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: > I heard that one of the versions of VirusX is really a virus so if someone > knows which one is the disease and not the cure please let us know. Several months ago, virusx 3.3 was the disease. -- -Frank Cunningham smart: fc@lexicon.com phone: (617) 891-6790 dumb: {husc6,linus,harvard,bbn}!spdcc!lexicon!fc Real Recording Engineers mix direct to stereo.
hrlaser@sactoh0.UUCP (Harv R. Laser) (10/11/89)
In article <1389@ultb.UUCP> kxs5829@ultb.UUCP (K.X. Saunders) writes: >Hi, > In reference to the VirusX questions, I'm running VirusX 3.2. >In addition to the other problems, it's not updating the "name : >count" virus counts at all. This is a known bug. > Also, on ff175, the release.notes say that virusx 3.1 is >supposed to be 11760 bytes long. The included executable is 11948 bytes >long. In contrast, virusx 3.2 is only 11896 bytes long. So, what's >wrong with this picture? What's wrong is that Steve Tibbett, talented guy that he is, is also sometimes too quick to post his creations.. in the case of VirusX 3.1, he changed the executable's size but forgot to change the .doc file's reference to the size too, so the two numbers are off, as you noted. Admittedly, this is disconcerting since the point of including the exe's size in the doc file was so that you'd know you got an un-tampered-with copy. :-/ Just stick with 3.2 and if you see a 3.3 float by you, let it keep right on floating 'cuz it's not a legitimate Steve Tibbett release. The next version is in the works right now but no version number will be mentioned ahead of time in order to try to avoid some nasty person from releasing a bogus version prematurely, which is what 3.3 is. > > Kyle -- | Harv Laser | SAC-UNIX, Sacramento, Ca. | | Plink: CBM*HARV | UUCP=...pacbell!sactoh0 | | "The human brain is the only computer made of meat" |
mgh1@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (matthew.g.hetman) (10/12/89)
In article <1940@sactoh0.UUCP>, hrlaser@sactoh0.UUCP (Harv R. Laser) writes: > > Just stick with 3.2 and if you see a 3.3 float by you, let it > keep right on floating 'cuz it's not a legitimate Steve Tibbett > release. The next version is in the works right now but no > version number will be mentioned ahead of time in order to > try to avoid some nasty person from releasing a bogus version > prematurely, which is what 3.3 is. > I agree with the comment stick with 3.2 but you must also use 3.1 to be sure you DO NOT have the SCA virus. The 3.2 will not properly detect the SCA virus even though it list the SCA virus as one of the viruses it can find. VirusX3.2 has the advantage of detecting more viruses then 3.1 but can not be relied upon to detect SCA. I have tried several sources for obtaining my version of 3.2, in case I had a tampered version and all did not find the SCA virus. Matt Hetman
kmh20822@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kevin Hill) (10/13/89)
While I don't know if my version of 3.2 misses the SCA virus sometimes, it has FOUND it on disks at least three times and appearently got rid of it. (The virus was even on the disk I got VirusX on!) So appearently either I have a 3.1 that was hacked to call itself 3.2 (not likely) or else somebody has made a version that is SCA friendly! Just my personal experiences with a week old 500... --kevin --
joe@vixen.uucp (Joe Hitchens) (10/14/89)
> I agree with the comment stick with 3.2 but you must also use 3.1 to > be sure you DO NOT have the SCA virus. The 3.2 will not properly detect > the SCA virus even though it list the SCA virus as one of the viruses > it can find. > > Matt Hetman Strange, my version of VirusX 3.20 detected the SCA virus for me just yesterday. It did NOT show up in the count of viruses found, but seemed to detect it just fine. It was the first virus I have ever encountered on my machine and coincidentally was detected on "Friday the 13". :-) j.h. ---------------- -- ========================================================================== Joe Hitchens -- Artist, Sculptor, Animator of Sculpture, Iconographer Adept joe@vixen ...!uunet!iconsys!caeco!vixen!joe joe@amie ...!uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core!amie!joe Phone: (801) 292-2190
wschmidt@iaoobelix.UUCP (Wolfram Schmidt) (10/18/89)
In article <1244@iaoobelix.UUCP> wschmidt@iaoobelix.UUCP (Wolfram Schmidt) writes: >A friend of mine reported, that the version of VirusX 3.20 i gave him >wouldn't kill the Byte Bandit in memory (comp.sources.amiga compiled with >Manx 3.6a) > [blah] Yesterday he told me, that it works fine now (with the Manx compiled version) Wolfram
davidb@psych.toronto.edu (David Brodbeck) (10/23/89)
In article <1370@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: > >I heard that one of the versions of VirusX is really a virus so if someone >knows which one is the disease and not the cure please let us know. > >Tim "Virusx3.3" is bogus, if its a virus I don't know -- // | Dave Brodbeck - University of Toronto Psychology | GO // | davidb@psych.toronto.edu | HABS \\ // | brodbeck@vm.utcs.utoronto.ca | GO! AMIGA! | Rmember - Chickadees have episodic memory! |