Re: DOS and Macro Virus Discussion

• To: stephen@iu.net (Stephen Cobb)
• Subject: Re: DOS and Macro Virus Discussion
• From: batie@aahz.jf.intel.com (Alan Batie)
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: rshirey@bbn.com, www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
• In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960819135350.00904778@iu.net> from "Stephen Cobb" at Aug 19, 96 09:53:50 am

> (for example, should Microsoft be held responsible for the fact that viruses
> can spread via DOS).

Not speaking for Intel, and definitely not trying to defend DOS, I have to
point out that it would be pretty trivial to write a virus for Unix; it would
only affect a single user unless the system administrator installed it as
root, but it could still have a large impact.  This is true of any system
where the users can install executables that can modify files (be they call
binaries, macros or postscript).  The only thing that surprises me is that
it hasn't been done more.

-- 
Alan Batie                     ------        What goes up, must come down.
batie@aahz.jf.intel.com        \    /        Ask any system administrator.
+1 503-264-8844 (voice)         \  /         --unknown
D0 D2 39 0E 02 34 D6 B4          \/          5A 41 21 8F 23 5F 08 9D

• Re: DOS and Macro Virus Discussion
• From: Stephen Cobb <stephen@iu.net>

• Previous: Monitoring logs
• Next: Re: Intranet branch security
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread