Virus Alert!

[Morgans[_2_]]

I know that viruses are not part of the newsgroup scene, but this one is
important enough, that I felt like making an announcement, to keep someone
from getting burned.

DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject line. It
will probably be coming from someone in your address book, so trust none of
them.

This will delete the 0 sector on your hard drive, so it is a bad virus; said
to be one of the worst ones in while.

Cheers
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>Microsoft Outlook Express

That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.

Savvy users have nothing to fear.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> I know that viruses are not part of the newsgroup scene, but this one
> is important enough, that I felt like making an announcement, to keep
> someone from getting burned.
>
> DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject
> line.


Why would I do that anyway?

Humbug, that;s all it is.


Bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gotcha!

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote in >:

>I know that viruses are not part of the newsgroup scene, but this one is
>important enough, that I felt like making an announcement, to keep someone
>from getting burned.

>DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject line. It
>will probably be coming from someone in your address book, so trust none of
>them.

>This will delete the 0 sector on your hard drive, so it is a bad virus; said
>to be one of the worst ones in while.

There is a tiny grain of truth in this mixed with a load
of ... uh ... dross:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Tri-Pacer]

>
> DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject line.
> It will probably be coming from someone in your address book, so trust
> none of them.
>
> This will delete the 0 sector on your hard drive, so it is a bad virus;
> said to be one of the worst ones in while.
>
>

Check out Snopes for this one.

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>
> Savvy users have nothing to fear.

Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
recognize a hoax.

Savvy users have nothing to fear.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:29:29 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>>
>> Savvy users have nothing to fear.
>
>Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
>recognize a hoax.
>

How can one be SURE it's a hoax if one is unable to see the contents
of the e-mail message without launching the links contained in it?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote

> There is a tiny grain of truth in this mixed with a load
> of ... uh ... dross:
>
> http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml
>
> http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp

Interesting. I didn't see that warning earlier. I guess the joke is on
me.

Sorry, all.
--
Jim in NC

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:17:31 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in >:

>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:29:29 +0100, Stefan >
>wrote:

>>Larry Dighera schrieb:

>>> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>>> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>>> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.

>>> Savvy users have nothing to fear.

>>Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
>>recognize a hoax.

>How can one be SURE it's a hoax if one is unable to see the contents
>of the e-mail message without launching the links contained in it?

A savvy user either disables that feature or uses an
e-mail client that doesn't automatically launch links
contained in the e-mail.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp

Or they have their incoming e-mail checked for viruses.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Paul Riley]

Hey Jim,

No sweat. I would rather be safe than sorry---so thanks for the heads up.

And if you are one of those know-it-all a**holes giving Jim a hard time, may
Santa poop in your stocking!!

Paul in OK.

>
> Interesting. I didn't see that warning earlier. I guess the joke is on
> me.
>
> Sorry, all.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:17:31 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in >:
>
>
>>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:29:29 +0100, Stefan >
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>
>>>>That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>>>>e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>>>>e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>
>
>>>>Savvy users have nothing to fear.
>
>
>>>Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
>>>recognize a hoax.
>
>
>>How can one be SURE it's a hoax if one is unable to see the contents
>>of the e-mail message without launching the links contained in it?
>
>
> A savvy user either disables that feature or uses an
> e-mail client that doesn't automatically launch links
> contained in the e-mail.
>
> http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml
>
> http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp
>
> Or they have their incoming e-mail checked for viruses.
>
> Marty

Earthlink trashes all that stuff before it gets to the PoP server.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote
>
> A savvy user either disables that feature or uses an
> e-mail client that doesn't automatically launch links
> contained in the e-mail.

True. Done, in my case. The problem with a real virus that comes from
people you know, is that you would be likely to open the E-mail and
attachments, because you believe they came from a friend, and that they are
safe. That makes this type of virus very dangerous, and very likely to
compromise the receiver's system.

> Or they have their incoming e-mail checked for viruses.

Done, in my case, also.

There is also the possibility that the virus is too new to be detected by
anti virus programs.

The *******s that write virus programs deserve to be hung by their
fingernails, then flogged. There are many scores of people hit by viruses
every year, and many of them were trying to be safe. Sometimes significant
damage is done to their machines.

If a warning helps other people to not get hit, I'll take them and send
them, anytime. If a few turn out to be hoaxes, I guess I can live with
that.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Paul Riley" > wrote in message
et...
> Hey Jim,
>
> No sweat. I would rather be safe than sorry---so thanks for the heads up.
>
> And if you are one of those know-it-all a**holes giving Jim a hard time,
> may Santa poop in your stocking!!
>
> Paul in OK.
>
And there we were... counting on enough coal in our stockings to stay warm
all winter and you had to ruin the comcept. :o(

Peter

BTW, on a mildly serious note, I trust links and attachments from some of
the people I know; but there are some very notable exceptions!

[Stefan]

Morgans schrieb:

> There is also the possibility that the virus is too new to be detected by
> anti virus programs.

The anti virus program people are pretty quick. If you have installed a
serious anti virus program and have subsribed for authomatic updates,
then you are pretty safe.

> If a warning helps other people to not get hit, I'll take them and send
> them, anytime. If a few turn out to be hoaxes, I guess I can live with
> that.

Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the one
you posted. Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of
virus, because it fills mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably
causes some friendly christmas mails to be deleted unread.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Morgans" > kinda/sorta wrote:

> The *******s that write hoax emails deserve to be hung by their
> fingernails, then flogged. There are many scores of people hit by
> hoaxes every year, and many of them were trying to be safe. Sometimes
> significant damage is done to their machines, because they followed
> information contained within.

I guess I can live with that...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> And there we were... counting on enough coal in our stockings to stay warm
> all winter and you had to ruin the comcept. :o(

Ahhh, that's O.K.

I've heard that **** burns well, too!
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I know that viruses are not part of the newsgroup scene, but this one
>> is important enough, that I felt like making an announcement, to keep
>> someone from getting burned.
>>
>> DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject line.
>
> Why would I do that anyway?
>
> Humbug, that;s all it is.

What if it were relabeled "Naked Female Bunyip Pix!"?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:xBG8j.1305$rZ3.1174
@trnddc07:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I know that viruses are not part of the newsgroup scene, but this one
>>> is important enough, that I felt like making an announcement, to keep
>>> someone from getting burned.
>>>
>>> DO NOT open any e-mails that say "Merry Christmas" in the subject line.
>>
>> Why would I do that anyway?
>>
>> Humbug, that;s all it is.
>
> What if it were relabeled "Naked Female Bunyip Pix!"?

Well, at this stage I'd have to can that too!

I get so much **** like that already it's unreal. That and offes for
remortgaging the bunyiop shack, V!agr@, HGH and god knows what else.
Full credit to OE for filters, though. I have to say I'm impressed with the
latest version for dumping most of it automatically.


Bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> "Paul Riley" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>Hey Jim,
>>
>>No sweat. I would rather be safe than sorry---so thanks for the heads up.
>>
>>And if you are one of those know-it-all a**holes giving Jim a hard time,
>>may Santa poop in your stocking!!
>>
>>Paul in OK.
>>
>
> And there we were... counting on enough coal in our stockings to stay warm
> all winter and you had to ruin the comcept. :o(
>
> Peter
>
> BTW, on a mildly serious note, I trust links and attachments from some of
> the people I know; but there are some very notable exceptions!
>
>
>
>

Ok Peter, you either will - or you won't.

But Merry Xmas anyway!


http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#xmas


Richard

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:54:14 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote in >:

> ... If a warning helps other people to not get hit, I'll take them and send
>them, anytime. If a few turn out to be hoaxes, I guess I can live with
>that.

There is no evidence that there is a new "Merry Christmas" virus.

There is no information in the variants of the hoax e-mail that
is going to help anyone avoid getting hurt by a brand-new virus.

If you want to sent out routine notices saying, "Watch out
for viruses" and "Be careful what links and attachments you
open," you're free to do so.

Me, I'd rather help people understand how to check chain letters
before passing them on. I think crying wolf is not terribly
helpful. YMMV.

Marty


--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Paul Riley" > wrote:

> And if you are one of those know-it-all a**holes giving Jim a hard
> time, may Santa poop in your stocking!!

And yellow may your snow be...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stefan" > wrote
>
> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the one you
> posted. Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus,
> because it fills mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some
> friendly christmas mails to be deleted unread.

Actually, I would not say never.

Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a lot of
people bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into
them, and that adds up to a great chance of something undesirable getting
into the system, and spreading if a warning is not passed.

That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as much time
checking on it, as I would have done if I had been at home.
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stefan" > wrote
>>
>> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the one you posted.
>> Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus, because it fills
>> mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some friendly christmas mails to be
>> deleted unread.
>
> Actually, I would not say never.
>
> Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a lot of people
> bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into them, and that adds up
> to a great chance of something undesirable getting into the system, and spreading if a
> warning is not passed.
>
> That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as much time checking on
> it, as I would have done if I had been at home.

This may have been bogus but there is some valid history behind these things. Back in the
DOS days any way that you could get the victim's PC to execute just two lines of DOS
commands would have been fatal:

cd C:\
delete *.*

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message news:jwM8j.9980$rZ3.4647@trnddc07...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Stefan" > wrote
>>>
>>> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the one you posted.
>>> Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus, because it fills
>>> mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some friendly christmas mails to
>>> be deleted unread.
>>
>> Actually, I would not say never.
>>
>> Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a lot of people
>> bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into them, and that adds up
>> to a great chance of something undesirable getting into the system, and spreading if a
>> warning is not passed.
>>
>> That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as much time checking
>> on it, as I would have done if I had been at home.
>
> This may have been bogus but there is some valid history behind these things. Back in
> the DOS days any way that you could get the victim's PC to execute just two lines of DOS
> commands would have been fatal:
>
> cd C:\
> delete *.*

Now that I think about it, all it takes is

del c:\*.*

It's been a while since I had to know DOS commands.

[muff528]

> The *******s that write virus programs deserve to be hung by their
> fingernails, then flogged. There are many scores of people hit by viruses
> every year, and many of them were trying to be safe. Sometimes significant
> damage is done to their machines.
>

Nah!........don't be too easy on them. If we REALLY wanted to instill fear
in their hearts and cause a general panic and mayhem among them we should
threaten to (whisper) "waterboard" them. That should make them stop, or at
least make them consider stopping.

TP

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:21:12 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:17:31 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in >:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:29:29 +0100, Stefan >
>>wrote:
>
>>>Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>>>> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>>>> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>>>> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>
>>>> Savvy users have nothing to fear.
>
>>>Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
>>>recognize a hoax.
>
>>How can one be SURE it's a hoax if one is unable to see the contents
>>of the e-mail message without launching the links contained in it?
>
>A savvy user either disables that feature or uses an
>e-mail client that doesn't automatically launch links
>contained in the e-mail.
>
>http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml
>
>http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp
>
>Or they have their incoming e-mail checked for viruses.
>
> Marty


Right. There is NO WAY to know for sure if the e-mail message is
malicious or not without looking at its contents.

My question was a rhetorical challenge to Stefan's assertion:

"Actually, it affects those users who are ignorant enough not to
recognize a hoax."

My point is, that it's not possible to recognize a hoax without
looking at the contents of the message.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-15 00:47:11 -0800, "John Mazor" > said:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Stefan" > wrote
>>>
>>> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the one
>>> you posted.
>>> Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus, because
>>> it fills
>>> mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some friendly
>>> christmas mails to be
>>> deleted unread.
>>
>> Actually, I would not say never.
>>
>> Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a
>> lot of people
>> bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into them,
>> and that adds up
>> to a great chance of something undesirable getting into the system, and
>> spreading if a
>> warning is not passed.
>>
>> That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as much
>> time checking on
>> it, as I would have done if I had been at home.
>
> This may have been bogus but there is some valid history behind these
> things. Back in the
> DOS days any way that you could get the victim's PC to execute just two
> lines of DOS
> commands would have been fatal:
>
> cd C:\
> delete *.*

Or get the user to execute those two commands in order to get rid of a
supposed virus. Remember the emails that went out telling the user to
erase obscure system files which were claimed to be viruses?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-14 10:31:45 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> Microsoft Outlook Express
>
> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>
> Savvy users have nothing to fear.

Savvy users use Macs. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:20:06 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-12-14 10:31:45 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft Outlook Express
>>
>> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>>
>> Savvy users have nothing to fear.
>
>Savvy users use Macs. :-)

I realize this is meant to be humorous, but ...

Does the web browser distributed with OSX (or whatever is current)
default to launching links contained within e-mail messages without
requesting confirmation from the user before doing so?

[Dane Spearing]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
>Does the web browser distributed with OSX (or whatever is current)
>default to launching links contained within e-mail messages without
>requesting confirmation from the user before doing so?

No, it does not.

-- Dane

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-15 07:19:29 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:20:06 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2007-12-14 10:31:45 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Microsoft Outlook Express
>>>
>>> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
>>> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
>>> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
>>>
>>> Savvy users have nothing to fear.
>>
>> Savvy users use Macs. :-)
>
> I realize this is meant to be humorous, but ...
>
> Does the web browser distributed with OSX (or whatever is current)
> default to launching links contained within e-mail messages without
> requesting confirmation from the user before doing so?

The web browser distributed with OS X is Safari and no, it does not.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:20:06 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2007-12-14 10:31:45 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:58 -0500, "Morgans"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Microsoft Outlook Express
> >>
> >> That will only affect those users who are ignorant enough to run
> >> e-mail client program that automatically opens links embedded within
> >> e-mail messages such as Microsoft Outlook Express.
> >>
> >> Savvy users have nothing to fear.
> >
> >Savvy users use Macs. :-)
>
> I realize this is meant to be humorous, but ...
>
> Does the web browser distributed with OSX (or whatever is current)
> default to launching links contained within e-mail messages without
> requesting confirmation from the user before doing so?

No.

Well, a couple of behaviors:

- Links in the body of the email are marked as such, you can click on
them if you want. They'll open (it figures you meant to do that). Social
engineering issues apply here. The default behavior is "no".

- If the email itself is html, it will display remote images or not,
depending on how you set up mail preferences. I keep that turned off by
default; if I want to see them, I can click on the marker where they are
to see the image. The default behavior here is also "no".

- All links will display their actual target if you hover the mouse
pointer over them. (There certainly a lot of oddball addresses that
claim to be "Paypal.com".)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:01:52 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:

> - If the email itself is html, it will display remote images or not,
>depending on how you set up mail preferences.

Html e-mail is a needless waste of bandwidth, and an unconscionable
security hole perpetrated by the clueless. I can see absolutely no
advantage it may provide over a link in a text e-mail message to the
html content.

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> Html e-mail is a needless waste of bandwidth. . .

Dumb question here. Scuzi.

Are we running out of bandwidth? If so, is it a Right-wing conspiracy - or
to be laid at the feet of the Left-wing media?

Rich "Donning flak vest" S.

[Peter Dohm]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Html e-mail is a needless waste of bandwidth. . .
>
> Dumb question here. Scuzi.
>
> Are we running out of bandwidth? If so, is it a Right-wing conspiracy - or
> to be laid at the feet of the Left-wing media?
>
> Rich "Donning flak vest" S.
>
Yes, it is/can. How could you even need to ask?

Peter :-))

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <RBM8j.102$Uq4.46@trnddc06>, John Mazor > wrote:
>
>"John Mazor" > wrote in message
>news:jwM8j.9980$rZ3.4647@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Stefan" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the
>one you posted.
>>>> Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus,
>because it fills
>>>> mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some friendly
>christmas mails to
>>>> be deleted unread.
>>>
>>> Actually, I would not say never.
>>>
>>> Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a
>lot of people
>>> bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into
>them, and that adds up
>>> to a great chance of something undesirable getting into the system,
>and spreading if a
>>> warning is not passed.
>>>
>>> That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as
>much time checking
>>> on it, as I would have done if I had been at home.
>>
>> This may have been bogus but there is some valid history behind these
>things. Back in
>> the DOS days any way that you could get the victim's PC to execute
>just two lines of DOS
>> commands would have been fatal:
>>
>> cd C:\
>> delete *.*
>
>Now that I think about it, all it takes is
>
>del c:\*.*
>
>It's been a while since I had to know DOS commands.

Of course all that either of those command sequences did was delete
the _regular_ files in the top-level directory of the first hard-disk.

Since the top-level directory has a (small) fixed maximum size, people
who 'knew something' would not put _any_ regular files directly in
that directory, the only thing there would be other directories. plus
the 'hidden/system/read-only' system files. For these kinds of people,
a 'del c:\*.*' did absolutely _nothing_, even if you suppressed the 'do
you really want to do this?' prompt. _when_ the extra switches became
available, the _really_ dangerous command was "format c: /q /y"

I used to make a habit of renaming the "format' command to something else
just to ensure that 'something wicked' couldn't do that.

[Jose]

> Html e-mail is a needless waste of bandwidth, and an unconscionable
> security hole perpetrated by the clueless.

Actually, it's perpetrated =on= the clueless, by presumably very cluefull ISPs and internet software writers.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-15 19:03:13 -0800, (Robert Bonomi) said:

> In article <RBM8j.102$Uq4.46@trnddc06>, John Mazor > wrote:
>>
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>> news:jwM8j.9980$rZ3.4647@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Stefan" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Serious virus warnings are *never* distributed by e-mails like the
>> one you posted.
>>>>> Actually, this e-mail itself can be considered a kind of virus,
>> because it fills
>>>>> mailboxes, wastes people's time and probably causes some friendly
>> christmas mails to
>>>>> be deleted unread.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I would not say never.
>>>>
>>>> Where I work, there are a lot of computers networked together, and a
>> lot of people
>>>> bringing things (files and software) from home and sticking into
>> them, and that adds up
>>>> to a great chance of something undesirable getting into the system,
>> and spreading if a
>>>> warning is not passed.
>>>>
>>>> That is how I got this warning, and admittedly, I did not spend as
>> much time checking
>>>> on it, as I would have done if I had been at home.
>>>
>>> This may have been bogus but there is some valid history behind these
>> things. Back in
>>> the DOS days any way that you could get the victim's PC to execute
>> just two lines of DOS
>>> commands would have been fatal:
>>>
>>> cd C:\
>>> delete *.*
>>
>> Now that I think about it, all it takes is
>>
>> del c:\*.*
>>
>> It's been a while since I had to know DOS commands.
>
> Of course all that either of those command sequences did was delete
> the _regular_ files in the top-level directory of the first hard-disk.
>
> Since the top-level directory has a (small) fixed maximum size, people
> who 'knew something' would not put _any_ regular files directly in
> that directory, the only thing there would be other directories. plus
> the 'hidden/system/read-only' system files. For these kinds of people,
> a 'del c:\*.*' did absolutely _nothing_, even if you suppressed the 'do
> you really want to do this?' prompt. _when_ the extra switches became
> available, the _really_ dangerous command was "format c: /q /y"
>
> I used to make a habit of renaming the "format' command to something else
> just to ensure that 'something wicked' couldn't do that.

I always thought the most wicked command in DOS was "restore." I fell
victim to it myself, and I know others who made the same mistake. It
does not restore anything.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> I always thought the most wicked command in DOS was "restore." I fell
> victim to it myself, and I know others who made the same mistake. It does
> not restore anything.

I had never heard of that one. What *does* it do?
--
Jim in NC

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-16 01:48:28 -0800, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
>> I always thought the most wicked command in DOS was "restore." I fell
>> victim to it myself, and I know others who made the same mistake. It does
>> not restore anything.
>
> I had never heard of that one. What *does* it do?

Sorry. I meant RECOVER. It renames all the files on the drive to just a
sequential number and moves them all to the root directory. So you end
up with all the files in the root, no subdirectories left (they were
renamed, too), and all the files have names like 000123.REC,
000124.REC, 000125.REC, etc.

It is intended to recover all the readable files on a drive that has
bad sectors. It should be used with a filename argument, such as
RECOVER [path][filename] and it will recover the usable parts of that
file.

Recover was eventually replaced by SCANDISK, which was somewhat less
dangerous to use.

The DOS RESTORE command restores files from a backup made with the
BACKUP command.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor