Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:13979 comp.compression:439
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!hoss!riddle
From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.compression
Subject: Re: LHA212JP.EXE .lzh archiver at garbo.uwasa.fi
Keywords: japan lha
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.113026.2657@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 91 11:30:26 GMT
References: <1991Apr21.074001.18243@uwasa.fi> <1991Apr22.032912.23254@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@unlinfo.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lines: 42
Nntp-Posting-Host: hoss.unl.edu


In <1991Apr22.032912.23254@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:

>In article <1991Apr21.074001.18243@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>>Sun 21-Apr-91: Acquired the Japanese version of LHa .lzh archiving
>>program version 2.12 from Japan.  I used the patch of the author to
>>include a version with an English help screen into the package. 
>>			Available in the usual manner from our
>>site. 

>Alternately, you can FTP the latest version of LHa directly from
>utsun.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (133.11.11.11) under /fj/lha (you'll find the
>patch there too).  Utsun is one of the first sites to receive new
>versions of LHa, as well as other things (archives of fj.sources and
>fj.binaries.msdos).

I, for one, certainly appreciate Yoshi-San's contribution of the LH/LHA
series of programs, but have one nagging concern.

McAfee has identified over 501 virus strains now known for MS-DOS.  Am I
the only one who is concerned about infection potential in SFX.EXE-type
files?  I know /I'm/ not enough of a technician to look inside a
self-extracting archive and check it out ahead of time.  That makes me
reluctant to unpack LHA212.EXE or any other such archive, no matter what
the reputation of the alleged source.  I get concerned about spoofing,
etc, by persons unknown.  I'm certain most readers remember the PKZ102.EXE
virus problem, for example.
 
Is there an alternative which will protect the rights of the authors to
insist all files be sent, and yet allow inspection by various utilities
before unpacking?  Is there a method I'm not aware of?  Does anyone have
any comments? (Like I'm too paranoid, or maybe something useful?)
 
Thanks,
Mike


--
            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
riddle@hoss.unl.edu                  |   University of Nebraska 
postmaster%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu   |   College of Law
mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA