hardin@dino.cad.mcc.com (John Hardin) (02/08/91)
I'm looking for an init that will scan (optionally) newly inserted floppies for virus much like SAM's (Symantec's Antivirus package). I could just buy SAM, but it's about $70 and *all* I want out of the package is the floppy scanner (is it the *only* thing in the package? :-) and I'm *cheap*! Does anyone know of a similar init that isn't so pricey? Thanks, -jwh -- John Hardin, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: hardin@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3535 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!hardin
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (02/09/91)
In article <HARDIN.91Feb7171104@dino.cad.mcc.com> hardin@dino.cad.mcc.com (John Hardin) writes: > I'm looking for an init that will scan (optionally) newly inserted > floppies for virus much like SAM's (Symantec's Antivirus package). I > could just buy SAM, but it's about $70 and *all* I want out of the > package is the floppy scanner (is it the *only* thing in the package? > :-) and I'm *cheap*! Does anyone know of a similar init that isn't so > pricey? Lot's of people think this a necessary feature for virus protection, but it isn't. I find automatic scans of newly inserted floppies incredibly intrusive and slow. They drive me nuts. I guess this makes novices feel all warm and safe, but it isn't necessary. The main purpose of an anti-viral INIT is to detect and block all known viruses, notify you if any are detected, and completely prevent the viruses from spreading or causing any harm. My Disinfectant INIT does just that, without doing any full scans of disks as they are inserted. Instead, it catches each virus at it's initial point of attack. It's tiny (< 6K), fast, completely unobtrusive, and it doesn't interfere with any installers, system software, or other programs. It does one thing and one thing only - it catches viruses. Disinfectant is free, available from all good electronic sources for free and shareware Mac software. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
keir@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Rick Keir, MACC) (02/09/91)
I just wanted to confirm 2 things John Norstad said, since he's
the author of Disinfectant and the suspicious might not believe
him.
(1) Checking floppies is intrusive: we have SAM here, and
put it on a few public machines as an experiment. The
staff don't usually use these machines (they are demo
and consulting units); even so, the *staff* couldn't
stand the constant hassle of the check. I don't want
to think about what our customers felt.
(2) He claimed that his INIT doesn't interfere with anything
else. I think Disinfectant is the most compatible program
I've ever had to work with, and I speak as one who, 5-6
times a week, has a conversation that starts with "Try
removing all INITs from your System Folder".
Disinfectant is great! carsup@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Fisher Library support) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb8.213450.23668@macc.wisc.edu> keir@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Rick Keir, MACC) writes: >I just wanted to confirm 2 things John Norstad said, since he's >the author of Disinfectant and the suspicious might not believe >him. > >(1) Checking floppies is intrusive: we have SAM here, and > put it on a few public machines as an experiment. The > staff don't usually use these machines (they are demo > and consulting units); even so, the *staff* couldn't > stand the constant hassle of the check. I don't want > to think about what our customers felt. > >(2) He claimed that his INIT doesn't interfere with anything > else. I think Disinfectant is the most compatible program > I've ever had to work with, and I speak as one who, 5-6 > times a week, has a conversation that starts with "Try > removing all INITs from your System Folder". > >Disinfectant is great! For some reason, I ended up with two legitimate copies of SAM. I sold one and gave the other to a friend :) Disinfectant is *THE* premier anti-viral util, although I am waiting eagerly for Chris Johnson's Gatekeeper 2.0. On that note, I do also recommend his Gatekeeper Aid INIT, which removes naughty viruses using the desktop file as their ride. My solution? Put both INITs into your System Folder: Disinfectant and GK Aid. Don't leave home without it! :) Even John Norstad agrees the two are really complementary (don't you, John?). Norton
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.054815.13710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> carsup@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Fisher Library support) writes: > My solution? Put both INITs into your System Folder: Disinfectant and GK Aid. > Don't leave home without it! :) Even John Norstad agrees the two are really > complementary (don't you, John?). Well, in general I recommend that people don't mix anti-viral INITs, with the exception of Gatekeeper and Gatekeeper Aid, which were designed to go together. The reason is that it doesn't increase your protection very much, it causes confusion when one or the other INIT does indeed discover a virus, and it's just asking for trouble with INIT conflicts. But I don't know of any conflicts between the various INITs, so this isn't a big deal - do what you want. I don't think that there's a great advantage to using the Disinfectant INIT and Gatekeeper Aid together. Yes, GK Aid will indeed eliminate desktop viruses and my INIT will only detect them, but rebuilding a floppy desktop only takes a second anyway. The great advantage of SAM Intercept and Gatekeeper over the Disinfectant INIT is that they can and often do protect against unknown (new) viruses (not all, but some), while my INIT is GUARANTEED to fail to detect them. The advantage of my INIT is that it is tiny, unobtrusive, efficient, easy to install, doesn't require configuration, and doesn't require complicated decisions which novices don't understand. This is an unavoidable tradeoff. Each user has to decide for himself which type of protection he wants to use. The most important thing is to use some kind of protection. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) (02/11/91)
John Norstad writes: > I find automatic scans of newly inserted floppies incredibly > intrusive and slow. They drive me nuts. I guess this makes novices > feel all warm and safe, but it isn't necessary. Bravo! It is nice to see this coming from someone as well respected as Mr. Norstad. My work uses SAM on all it's machines, and it is the most annoying bit of my day.... And that is disregarding the fact that it makes my boot-up time almost three times longer than it should be....ack! I use Disinfectant at home, but for some reason you can't convince some corporate-types that a 'FREE' product is as good (or indeed BETTER) than something they pay to license... .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!pj | RTFD = Read The Silly Doc! | | INET: pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org | | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) (02/12/91)
First off, I agree completely with everything John N. and others have said already. BUT If you really must have 1984-style scanning of inserted floppies, I believe that the shareware program virus detective can autoscan. I say believe because, like others, I use a combination of the disinfectant init and GateKeeper/GK Aid. (By the way John -- using the two (three?) in combination has one distinct advantage -- with the prevalance of .SEA files floating around, I can have protection against known viri ALL the time and protection against unknown viri most of the time -- and I have never seen a conflict between them, nor seen any "bumping" when I looked w/ init scope) It (Virus Det.) seems to be well supported by the author, as he has the search strings for new viruses out at about the same time as John has the next Disf. ready, both of which seem to occur prior to any commercial defense release. But your milage may vary... --> --> Dale UVa (ds4a@virginia.edu)