Re: worm in memory

From: David H. Lipman (DLipman~nospam~_at_Verizon.Net)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:24:35 -0400

Incomplete and partially erroneous information from an anonymous poster whose deficiencies
are noted by the sentence "...deleting
them or filling them with garbage and same with anti viri dat files."

Mr. or Ms. anonymous.
There is no such terminology as "viri". The plural for virus is "viruses."

Dave

"anonymousy" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:164701c4bd49$c442c930$a401280a@phx.gbl...
| Actually according to some of the newer trojans out there
| the creators seem to be bragging that they are using
| inject methods into popular browsers such as IE or
| Netscape and when IE or Netscape is run the injected code
| into the browser will always go back to a website silently
| in the backround and download an infected file into memory
| each time.
|
| Some programs have gone out of there way to infect
| multiple .exe files in this manner. It's very intimidating
| and scary that people are doing this. Most of the newer
| trojans kill firewalls, disabling .dat files, deleting
| them or filling them with garbage and same with anti viri
| dat files. Some even go out of their way to block them
| from downloading updates or forcing programs to download
| fake updates. Maybe this is the kind of thing the original
| poster was worried about? An infected file in memory
| loaded each time by a coded payload into something as
| simple as IE which will automatically bypass standard
| firewall settings and once in memory bypassing A/Vs.
|
| >-----Original Message-----
| >OK you got me -- call me a sophomoric poster ;-)
| >
| >We *all* make mistakes and I admit this one :-(
| >
| >Dave
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >"Jo" <rty@invalid.jp> wrote in message
| news:Xns958FE5B7E4907FlSxxx@207.46.248.16...
| >| =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgSC4gTGlwbWFu?=
| <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote
| >| in news:76BD838B-F9DD-4EC5-BF97-
| A1FCFDE1AC4F@microsoft.com:
| >|
| >| > unable to "perform its duties" and thus be impudent
| >|
| >| "Impudent" doesn't fit the context, dumbo. You probably
| meant
| >| "impotent". <sigh>
| >
| >
| >.
| >