Re: Trojan horse Downloader.Generic.ML

From: Ron Reaugh (ron-reaugh_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 06/21/05


Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:57:53 GMT


"Roger Wilco" <yesman@yourservice.invalid> wrote in message
news:11berqncer3uu76@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Ydote.990650$w62.406279@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Roger Wilco" <yesman@yourservice.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:11bc0s7cijg9v0d@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:DHmte.338769$cg1.17632@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > > > (it is not executable
> > > >
> > > > WHO SAYS? Where there's code there's a possible fire.
> > >
> > > Right - hence my QBASIC "text" file scenario. If I wrote a batchfile
> > > that fed that textfile to the QBASIC interpreter, then the batchfile
> > > would be the trojan threat - not the "text" file itself.
> >
> > YES, the text file itself is and I'd expect a good checker to find
> and
> > eliminate it if it was in fact part of a multistepped
> attack/penetration.
>
> A "trojan" is a program - and a text file is not a program - therefore a
> text file is not a trojan.

Wacko....a trojan is a pentration. It makes no difference if it's a wooden
horse or a wolf in sheeps clothing.

> You profess to prefer logic, so there it is.

Did you plunk your magic plonker froggie?