Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
From: chrisj@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Suggestion for virus prevention
Keywords: CODE resource virus detection
Message-ID: <9415@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 89 21:04:03 GMT
References: <1272@viscous.sco.COM> <3614@tekig4.TEK.COM> <9382@ut-emx.UUCP> <3530@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: chrisj@emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson)
Organization: U.T. Austin Computation Center
Lines: 29

In article <3530@utastro.UUCP> bill@astro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes:
<In article <9382@ut-emx.UUCP> chrisj@emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson) writes:
<#
<#The INIT/cdev is called GateKeeper, and version 1.0 was finished and released
<#on January 2nd.  It has been posted to comp.binaries.mac and will appear
<#there eventually, but it is already available from Sumex at Stanford and
<#Simtel20 at White Sands.
<#
<Is GateKeeper intended to be used _instead_ of Vaccine or _in addition_
<to it? The documentation doesn't say.

I recommend using GateKeeper _instead_ of Vaccine.  Although I don't know the
*exact* nature of the protection afforded by Vaccine, I believe that GateKeeper
provides more, i.e. it has a wider and more flexible definition of what 
constitutes virus-like behavior.  I don't believe there's any actual conflict
between GateKeeper and Vaccine if they are run on the same system, but running
Vaccine tends to cancel out much of the flexibility and transparency I built
into GateKeeper, so I don't think that running them both is of much use.

My apologies for not dealing with this subject in the on-line help, but I
failed to anticipate that anyone would want to run both of them and I didn't
want it to seem as though I was out-to-get Vaccine.

<Thanks,
<
<Bill Jefferys

No problem,
----Chris