Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!goehring From: goehring@cs.purdue.EDU (Scott Goehring) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Viruses and LZARC (sic) Keywords: self-extracting archivers Message-ID: <6557@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 15 Apr 89 01:53:13 GMT References: <2530005@hpbsla.HP.COM> Reply-To: goehring@cs.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) Organization: Purdue University Department of Computer Sciences Lines: 30 In article <2530005@hpbsla.HP.COM> eboston@hpbsla.HP.COM (Ed_Boston) writes: >I have seen a couple of messages about how LZARC might be slower than most >other program, but it creates smaller files. Also, it has the ability to >create self-running COM files. It is this last part I wish to address. [...] >However, as time went on, the ability to create self-running COM >files were discovered and the feeling about LZARC changed. This >function now allow people with a warped sense of humor, a simple way >of infecting disks with a virus. >Because of this problem, I would suggust not using LZARC unless you have >placed safegards against viruses and trojans on your system. I vote against >LZARC or any program that allows self-running programs. ARC, PKPAK, ZIP, and ZOO all have the capability to create self-extracting archives (which is what I assume you are talking about). Are you then recommending against the use ARC, ZIP, ZOO, and PKPAK, and instead recommending that we go back to LBR and SQ? I agree with you that self-extracting archives should be avoided, but that does not mean that we should not use archivers that allow them to be created; simply do not make them. Also, ZOO and, I understand, ZIP and ARC, allow you to unpack a self-extracting archive using the normal tool (without running it) so even then it's not that much of a problem. -- Scott Goehring | Arpanet: goehring@cs.purdue.edu ---------------' UUCP: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!goehring EggNet: 99:9700/80 Purdue: eyu@n, gms@mentor, qbu@mentor The ultimate truth begins at digit 231,454