Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: non-sacaning anti-virus techniques (PC)
Message-ID: <0004.9102221354.AA15356@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 07:58:16 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 28
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

LCHICAIZ@ANDESCOL.BITNET (Luis B. Chicaiza S.) writes:
>I belive that is more useful to prevent virus contamination than try
>to clean a system when it's infected.

I think everybody will agree with this.

>I have a new anti-virus product, (named COMPUCILINA), this program vaccinate
>other programs (aplication ones, system programs, and a disk boot), and
>guarantees these programs will not be infected.  COMPUCILINA offers
>protection agaist actual and future viruses.

Truly interesting, if this is 100% true - but I doubt it.  It is easy
to add code to programs and boot sectors which will detect infection
by 98% of currently known viruses - all the 400 or so known variants,
other than a few "stealth" viruses.

Adding code which PREVENTS something from being infected is an
entirely different story - what if the computer is booted from a
floppy and some infected program run ?  No additions to other
programs, no matter how sophisticated could prevent the programs from
being infected.  The additional code MIGHT detect the infection, but
as I said before, detection and prevention are two different things.

- -frisk

Fridrik Skulason      University of Iceland  |
Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK)  |  Reserved for future expansion
E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is    Fax: 354-1-28801  |


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com