RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses

From: Hunter, Laura E. (
Date: 03/05/04

  • Next message: Paul Szabo: "RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses"
    To: "'Full Disclosure'" <>
    Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:34:59 -0500

    To paraphrase Werner von Braun, always use the word 'never' with the utmost
    caution. :-)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Curt Purdy []
    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:20 PM
    Cc: 'Full Disclosure'
    Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses

    Valdis.Kletnieks wrote:

    > > Ah, I wish... An alternative is to allow only a
    > proprietary extension
    > > through, like .inc Legitimate senders would rename the
    > file, be it .exe
    > > .doc .jpg, indicate in the body of the message what the
    > true extension is,
    > > and the receiver merely renames it.

    > So let's see.. the same bozos who read the text part of the virus, get
    > the password, and use that to unzip the rest of the virus won't read
    > the text part, get the rename to do,
    > and.....
    > Color me dubious....

    Methinks you misunderstand. Only the proprietary extension, i.e. .inc or
    .xyz or .whatever, would be allowed through, and since virus writers would
    never use this extension, it would eliminate ALL viruses at the gateway. The
    nice thing about this approach is that it completely eliminates the need for
    any anti-virus on the mail server since all virus attachments are
    automatically dropped without the need for scanning. Quite a simple, yet
    elegant solution, if I do say so myself.

    Information Security Engineer
    DP Solutions


    If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What's
    more, you deserve to be hacked.
    -- White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Paul Szabo: "RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses"