Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: Murray_RJ@cc.curtin.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: What's so bad about self-extracting archives?
Message-ID: <0002.9105021354.AA27981@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 14:20:00 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 25
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

magnus%thep.lu.se@Urd.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
> I'm sorry if this question seems a bit naive, but why are people so
> concerned about the risk of virus-infected self-extracting archive
> files?
>
> Can't you just first run the archive file through your favourite virus
> checker, and if it passes the test extract it, and then test the
> individual files that were inside it? Or have I missed something?

   Well, yes, I suppose you could, but it involves an extra step which
is unnecessary. The other objection I have with self-extracting
archives is that you're stuck with extracting the whole lot, even if
you only want to find out what the !@#$%^&*() thing does. If it's not
a self-extracting archive, you can use a shell like SHEZ (or, even,
just extract the .doc files) and do it much faster and easier.
.....Ron

===============================================================================
 Internet: Murray_RJ@cc.curtin.edu.au                | "You can lead a horse to
 ACSnet: Murray_RJ@cc.cut.oz.au                      | water, but if you can
 Bitnet: Murray_RJ%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet    | get him to float on his
 UUCP  : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!Murray_RJ | back you've really got
Amateur Packet Radio: VK6ZJM@VK6BBS.#WA.AUS.OC       | something"
               TCP/IP: 44.136.204.14, 44.136.204.19  |    -- Murphy's Law I
===============================================================================