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: umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!cs106132@uunet.UU.NET (cs106132)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: F-PROT & FluShot+ (1.81) problems 3 . . . (PC)
Message-ID: <0002.9105131358.AA08971@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 14:37:59 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 29
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

>this strain, it could not detect it. This is expected as the documentation
>hints.  However, when I ran F-OSCHK, the virus infected the system files
>.....This is not a bug type of thing, it is a design flaw!

*This problem is of course not unique to F-PROT - every other scanner
*has this same problem.  In fact, the DOS 'COPY' command can also cause
*a similar effect - infection of files when they are read.  Is it a
*design flaw in DOS ?

	Amazing!  You totally missed the point sir.  Neither DOS, nor
any of its utility programs (the ones that come with DOS) make any
claims for being capable of dealing with viruses.  In that regard, the
criticism does not apply to them.  F-PROT and FluShot+ (1.81) are
full-blown, widely-used ANTI-VIRAL packages.  If DOS etc. could have
handled the problem, we would not have been unfortunate enough to
shell out more bucks to feel secure from viruses.

*So - with the current generation of scanners, this problem cannot be
*avoided.

	Not at all.  I have seen at least one beta-test version of a
new product that does not suffer from the mentioned problems.  Because
of an agreement, I am not allowed to say more on this.  But, it will
be available in the near future according to the developers.

*- -frisk

Regards,
Tarkan