Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!cse!desimone From: desimone@cse.uta.edu (David DeSimone) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Why are McAffee Antivirals repacked using ZOO? Message-ID: <1991May9.064338.6039@cse.uta.edu> Date: 9 May 91 06:43:38 GMT References: <1042@iiasa.UUCP> Distribution: comp Organization: Computer Science Engineering Univ. of Texas at Arlington Lines: 33 In article <1042@iiasa.UUCP> wnp@iiasa.AT (Wolf PAUL ) writes: >roeve@cip-s01.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Roevenich) writes: >+ Well, the subject says about everything: Why are those programs >+ repacked with ZOO? In their original ZIP-archive, they are packed >+ using the -AV-Option, which is supposed to be a guard against >+ tangling with its contents. > >Because it is C.B.I.P. policy to package all postings in ZOO format. >ZOO has the advantage of being fully functional in a wider range of >hardware/software environments (including UNIX on practically any CPU) >than ZIP or any of the other PC Archivers. It is available in source >and is FREEWARE rather than Shareware. Um...According to the license I read, PKZIP does not *require* a registration fee, it only asks for one. Isn't that freeware? Also, ZIP is quickly gaining use on Unix machines. >Anyway, how could any option to an archiver really guard against >tampering? All you would have to do is unpack them (w/ pkunzip), >tamper with them, and repack them (w/ zip -av), and you would be none >the wiser. The -AV option requires a special serial number, hopefully known only to the original vendor who packed the archive. Thus you cannot actually recreate an archive with verification unless you are a serial number holder, and that is controlled by PK-Ware. -- David DeSimone, aka "Fuzzy Fox" on some networks. /!/! INET: an207@cleveland.freenet.edu / .. Q-Link: Fuzzy Fox / --* Quote: "Foxes are people too! And vice versa." / ---