bpan
06-19-2002, 05:50 PM
Sounds like hype to me. From the article's description of propagation and infection methods, it sounds very common.
The distribution of the virus is apparently similar to many others, via executable code. I presume an "infected" jpeg would simply manifest as a corrupted image.
It sounds like another easily trapped virus due to its method of propagation. How much sense does it take to refrain from running executables from unknown sources, or without first virus checking them?
Worst case scenario: Corruption of jpeg data, which if mission critical, ought to be archived and/or secured from such threats anyway.
This virus MAY be unique in terms of its target, but that's about it.
As with all executables of unknown/unsecured origin...
If in doubt
DON'T OPEN IT!
'nuff said.
bpan
The distribution of the virus is apparently similar to many others, via executable code. I presume an "infected" jpeg would simply manifest as a corrupted image.
It sounds like another easily trapped virus due to its method of propagation. How much sense does it take to refrain from running executables from unknown sources, or without first virus checking them?
Worst case scenario: Corruption of jpeg data, which if mission critical, ought to be archived and/or secured from such threats anyway.
This virus MAY be unique in terms of its target, but that's about it.
As with all executables of unknown/unsecured origin...
If in doubt
DON'T OPEN IT!
'nuff said.
bpan