At 6:13 AM +0000 5/10/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:01:46 -0700
>From: Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Possible virus warning
>
>on 5/9/02 6:13 PM, John A. Lind at jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > That's not to say it's either of them, just that they have email addresses
> > in the same domain as it originated from. I strongly recommend both of
> > them scan their machines quite thoroughly with the most current *updated*
> > virus detection software. Both contained a W32/Klez.?@MM (don't recall the
> > variant; very likely the Klez.h) worm in executable attachments (which were
> > promptly ensnared and deleted during my mail download). One of the two
> > attachments was supposedly a "W32.Klez.E removal tool" and the message text
> > urged using it to prevent infection from the worm!!!! The Klez.h variant
> > is a *new* worm discovered in mid-April this year.
>[snip]
At 6:13 AM +0000 5/10/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:09:26 +0200
>From: Johan Malmstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m <jmalmstrom@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Possible virus warning
>
>Den 02-05-10 06.01, skrev "Jim Brokaw" <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > So, how does this affect the few who use the Mac OS...? My understanding is
> > that it is a Windows problem, I hope someone can confirm that.
>
>I can't confirm in this specific case but as far as I understand these
>email-worms often uses VisualBasic in conjunction with some autostart
>function. Microsoft has not or were not allowed to include these features on
>the mac-platform. The only viruses in recent time for mac is macro-viruses
>infecting Word document. But your mac CAN spread other viruses, for example
>email worms.
>
>My last virus infection was in 1990, I think, or actually not a infection,
>my Disinfectant init discovered the virus and disinfected it. Oh that sweet
>System 6 days...
That's been my experience too. Only cross-platform programs can be worms or
virii that infect Macs. If the virus must end in .exe or .pif or .vbf or the
like, it requires Windows and will not work on a Mac.
There were macro virii for MS Word, but subsequent versions of Word cut this
off, though I still get an infected Word document from time to time.
As a matter of programming, the Mac is not inherently virus proof, but there
are two odd reasons Macs aren't so often attacked any more.
The first is relative insignificance -- MacOS has something like 50f the
desktop computer market, so 950f the potential virus writers know only Windows.
The second is more interesting -- Microsoft has gone to great lengths to ensure
that stuff written to run on Windows works nowhere else, to protect the Windows
franchise. It's possible to write cross-platform programs, but it takes real
skill and vigilence.
This was amply proved in the Microsoft antitrust case, where on 28 June 2001
the Federal Appeals Court concluded:
"Finally, other Microsoft documents confirm that Microsoft intended to deceive
Java developers, and predicted that the effect of its actions would be to
generate Windows- dependent Java applications that their developers believed
would be cross- platform; these documents also indicate that Microsoft's
ultimate objective was to thwart Java's threat to Microsoft's monopoly in the
market for operating systems. One Microsoft document, for example, states as a
strategic goal: "Kill cross- platform Java by grow [ing] the polluted Java
market." GX 259, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14514; see also id. ("Cross-platform
capability is by far the number one reason for choosing/using Java.") (emphasis
in original)."
>From page 56 of the ruling. "Deceive" is a very strong word. And ugly.
Although this quote discusses only Java, Microsoft applied this policy across
the board, as discussed elsewhere in the ruling, and in Judge Jackson's
Findings of Fact, which were upheld in their entirety.
So why is an engineer reading appeals-court rulings? Basically, I had gotten
tired of people spinning the Department of Justice -vs- Microsoft case and
appeals-court ruling this way or that, so I went to the primary source. It's
quite the eye-opener, and I can now tell which pundits have and have not done
their homework. Some of the positions are hilarious.
See <http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1720/0.pdf> for the full text of the
appeals-court ruling, case number 00-5212, decided 28 June 2001. This isn't
hard for non-lawyers to read. The judges had to know that their audience would
be very wide.
The original Findings of Fact, upheld in their entirety by the Appeals Court,
are even more strongly worded than the Appeals Court Opinion quoted above.
All relevant court documents may be found at
<http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-all.html>. The findings are also not
hard to read, but a bit of a slog to get through.
So, Mac-lovers can thank Microsoft for keeping the virus-writers focused on
Windows.
Joe
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|