|
31 Jul 01 - 03:35 PM (#518546) Subject: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Mr Red No it's nothing to do with, me but anyone seen any effects of Red Worm yet? PC's should be OK but is Mudcat safe? My ISP has sent out e-mail assurance but expects the 'NET' to clog-up with traffic. Answer before midnight preferred. |
|
31 Jul 01 - 03:57 PM (#518560) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: katlaughing This is the latest I could find at www.symantec.com I've not run into, nor heard of it, until now: The Little_Red virus is a .COM and .EXE file infecting virus that specifically targets the COMMAND.COM file and uses encrypting when storing itself within a file. While this virus is active in memory, it will spread to other files during any attempt to execute a file or whenever a DIR command is issued. In the case of the DIR command, all the files in the current working directory become infected. In attempts to hide itself from the user, this virus uses size stealthing whenever the DIR command is issued. On either December 16th or September 09th when the systems date's year value is greater than 1994, the virus will trigger at a random time and play a song. Also Known As: Red Book, Mao Category: Virus Infection Length: 1,465 bytes Damage: Payload Trigger: Any December 16 th or September 09 th after the year 1994 Payload: Modifies files: Command, .COM, .EXE files |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:10 PM (#518570) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Roger in Sheffield Isn't it this one Kat? |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:12 PM (#518572) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Clinton Hammond Where do I sign up to perpetuate Red Worm?!?!?! LOL!!!!! |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:14 PM (#518575) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Mr Red Red Worm only affects NT & 2000 and IIS servers versions (not that I understand all of that. Praps Little Red is a different one - it's dates have been 19th (was that when Mudcat had its problems?) and tonight. |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:16 PM (#518577) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Roger in Sheffield guardian explanation I think you would have to have the right system Clinton, Win 95/98 are immune |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:23 PM (#518580) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Clinton Hammond I have 95/98... so I can be a carrier?!?!?! LOL!!! |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:23 PM (#518581) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Mrrzy But I'm at high risk because I have a cable connection to the Internet at home? Is that a correct understanding? |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:35 PM (#518592) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: GUEST Mrzzy have a look at the guardian link, what system is your computer using, win 95, 98, ME ? |
|
31 Jul 01 - 04:53 PM (#518600) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Gareth Perhaps we should treat it like Foot 'n Mouth, and cull all infected servers and servers wot are contigous to an infected server ! Gareth |
|
01 Aug 01 - 02:50 PM (#519238) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Mr Red I was trying to post last night and the net cludged on me, I reckon a lot of surfers were getting in before midnight. A colleague was having it easy at 12.10 lat night - fewer surfers obviously. |
|
01 Aug 01 - 03:59 PM (#519284) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: SharonA How appropriate that this be on a music forum! LOL! What song does the virus play? (For that matter, what instrument would a virus play – if it could?) |
|
01 Aug 01 - 04:06 PM (#519288) Subject: RE: BS: Red Worm - Not Guilty From: Roger in Sheffield As I am off to Sidmouth (and so won't see the comments) Can I use the usual joke... The instrument of choice for a VIRUS..................... |