Return-Path: XPUM04@prime-a.central-services.umist.ac.uk Received: from G.SEI.CMU.EDU by ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.3) id AA13822; Fri, 1 Jun 90 11:28:14 -0400 Received: from SEI.CMU.EDU by g.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA20543; Fri, 1 Jun 90 11:28:13 -0400 Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.3) id AA00519; Fri, 1 Jun 90 11:28:01 -0400 Received: from sun.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by vax.NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP id aa23347; 1 Jun 90 16:05 BST From: Anthony Appleyard To: KRVW <@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK:KRVW@sei.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 90 16:07:32 BST Message-Id: <$TGTWCZCFFBRN at UMPA> Subject: Virus-L vol 0 issue #0515 Virus-L Digest Sun, 15 May 88, Volume 0 : Issue #0515 Today's Topics Re: software self-checks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 May 88 19:11:29 EDT Reply-To: Virus Discussion List Sender: Virus Discussion List From: Jim Frost Subject: Re: software self-checks |> |however, such checks would be very useful in slowing the spread of a virus. |> |> A couple of comments to this. Yes, it'd slow the spread of |> viruses, but it would also make you less paranoid about them (and |> thus less likely to catch them), | ---- | I assume this should have been MORE likely to catch them? No, I meant less. If a virus was built that circumvented the checks, you'd probably never find it because you're not looking for it under the assumption that if it were there, you'd be told. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu