Re: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert.....
From: Anthony Carnemolla (anthonyc@mdolblk.com)Date: 07/30/01
- Previous message: Sean Rossi: "RE: Remote Administration on W2K"
- In reply to: Meritt James: "Re: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert....."
- Next in thread: thin-line@ftb.com: "RE: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Anthony Carnemolla <anthonyc@mdolblk.com> To: SECURITY-BASICS@securityfocus.com Subject: Re: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert..... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:27:11 -0700 Message-Id: <01073010271100.06100@hagbard>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 27 July 2001 09:15, Meritt James wrote:
> Quite a few add the extension as a way of "hiding" what is going on, not
> just Sircam. If you get an attachment with THREE groupings, assume it
> is a 'bad thing' and act appropriately. Has anyone seen a three-group
> attachment and it been ok?
Yes. Other operating systems use a '.' in different ways. I would not want to
block all 'three-group' extension attachments if I anticipate that someone
might for example send me a "file.tar.gz".
> V/R
>
> Jim
- --
- -Anthony Carnemolla
System Administrator, MD On-Line
GPG public key available on request
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjtlmPoACgkQ+CuKd58LPcn6UwCfehecu6QJUy/DpksEKtZ+MxIe
f0EAn2my7Fge9JJa2FD769b3gCavnBd2
=VBiv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message: Sean Rossi: "RE: Remote Administration on W2K"
- In reply to: Meritt James: "Re: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert....."
- Next in thread: thin-line@ftb.com: "RE: Win32.Sircam.Worm Alert....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|