Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!clouds
From: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Garfield
Summary: "if you don't know, ask.."  Mea culpa, BUT...
Message-ID: <39130@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 4 Nov 90 16:36:53 GMT
References: <29097@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <4442@tellab5.tellabs.com> <39095@ut-emx.uucp> <1990Nov3.080223.17090@cs.umn.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong)
Lines: 29

In article <1990Nov3.080223.17090@cs.umn.edu> aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian 
Aslakson) writes:
>
>Just because a program (init, etc) has a name with Garfield in it doesn't
>make it a virus.  OKAY?
>
Certainly, okay. BUT... the only time I have ever encountered the Garfield
VIRUS, it was attached to the Garfield INIT. I've never seen the init without
the virus, and I've never seen the virus without the init. My assumption
(perhaps wrong, but not unreasonable) was that the virus was being distributed
via the init. Hence, my advice to the original poster to get rid of it.

Brian also points out that Garfield is MDEF-A, not a WDEF variant, as I had
guessed (from memory--my mistake!); and that the current version of
Disinfectant is indeed 2.3. Heh, well, that's the version I have, but I was 
being cautious--I didn't KNOW, so I didn't want to SAY.  :-)


So, three morals to this story, I guess: 
* It's unwise to rely entirely on memory for informative postings.
* A posting that seems to be mistaken may have some reason behind it after all.
* It would be smart to check the Garfield init BEFORE putting it on your system.



 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   Kathy Strong               :  "Welcome to FUBAR Corp., where there's  
  (Clouds moving slowly)      :   never enough time to do a job right,   
   clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  :   but always enough time to do it over."