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

From: Paul Szabo (
Date: 03/05/04

  • Next message: Incident List Account: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses"
    Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:18:27 +1100 (EST)

    Curt Purdy <> wrote:

    >>> 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.
    > 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.

    Yes, it eliminates a large class of viruses. But, it would not do
    anything to "local" attacks (a virus modified specifically to handle
    your particular setup; and if it becomes widely used then "real"
    viruses will also do the same).

    Also it does nothing to viruses that do not use attachments: attacks
    on a "Subject:" buffer overflow, or a virus delivery via the web with
    a link or "Content-type: message/external-body".

    Also you might miss some attachments: "uuencoded block"s, or those
    within incomplete "Content-type: message/partial" bits.

    Within those limitations, it is a great idea to keep an organization
    free from "common" attacks.


    Paul Szabo -
    School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney 2006 Australia

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Incident List Account: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: E-Mail viruses"