Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!diana.cair.du.edu!bstocker
From: bstocker@diana.cair.du.edu (Bob Stocker)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PKLITE, what's the catch???
Keywords: PKLITE
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.193811.24507@mercury.cair.du.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 19:38:11 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.012138.13729@mlb.semi.harris.com> <1991Jun26.141813.29418@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@mercury.cair.du.edu (netnews)
Organization: University of Denver
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jun26.141813.29418@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>routh@eltanin.rtp.semi.harris.com (Kevin Routh x622) writes:
>
>>I just got a neat program called PKLITE version 1.05 and have decreased
>>my hard disk usage by 4 Meg.  What's tha catch (aside from the obvious
>>extra second or two it take to load a exe)?  Are there any gotcha's
>>associated with using PKLITE?  E-mail responses are fine, let's not
>>clutter the net.
>
>As far as I know, no catches.  Obviously, it doesn't work with some files.
>
There is one possible catch:  Most virus scanners won't pick up
viruses that are embedded in a PKLITE, DIET or whatever file.
The latest versions of fprot do, however, detect self-decompressing
executables and documentation that comes with that program suggests
that future versions of fprot will be able to check these files for
viruses as well.

In the meantime, it would certainly make sense to check you files
for viruses before turing them into self-decompressors.

-- 
Internet:	bstocker@du.edu
BITNET:		BSTOCKER@DUCAIR
HockeyNet:	The DU Pioneers!