Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: gm@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gary Mathews) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Validating Virus Software Message-ID: <0015.9004091138.AA06134@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 8 Apr 90 23:44:14 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 31 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu WARD@SENECA.BITNET (David Ward -- Computer Support/Special Needs) writes: >Periodically we hear concerns about the validity of SCANVxx and other >antiviral programs. I think these concerns are valid since a >virmentor creating a virus would likely take great joy in attaching >the virus software to a product designed to fight viruses. > >I do not have complete confidence in our local sources of SCANVxx > >A simple solution to this problem is that when new versions of scan >are announced on this digest, the announcement should include the >validation strings given by McAfee. Then we can download from any >local source and compare the strings published in Virus-L to >those we generate with the validate program. Dave, I agree with you fully and I think that the Virus Discussion List and/or John McAfee himself should post the validate strings to the *NET* In fact, a list of must commonly used programs should be included on such a list, but for now the validated strings of the lastest versions for the scan and clean programs should be publically accessible. Many people will hesitate from getting an updated version because it may be a virus in disguise. After people can be assured that the program is valid, then they could get the new copy and register it. Gary Mathews - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Jason Mathews | gm@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University | Death is life's way of telling you you've been fired. - ------------------------+ CPU time flies when you have a lot of bugs