Paul,
Myth: 3. any invented story.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
(From: MegaLex Macquarie Concise Dictionary)
Perhaps you also should have a more critical and careful look at what has been
said about this 'virus'.
It seems to me to classify this as a 'myth' is a bit unrealistic.
A quick check seems to show that more than just "An anti-virus company with a
vested interest in keeping us all scared" is interested, at least, in this
event.
Although this particular 'proof of concept' virus does not at this stage appear
to cause any real problems I personally have no doubt that it is only a matter
of time before something similar will.
Perhaps this shows that my understanding of programming, computer languages and
computer concepts is inferior to yours but I work on the principle that if
someone can think of it someone can do it...eventually.
I thank PC User Magazine for publishing the low-key comment on this topic.
I interpreted the article as purely a comment that in no way was intended to
terrify the pants of all Internet users!
It seemed to me to be simply a way of keeping users informed.
Similarly, my posting to Birding-aus was also intended to inform without
terrifying.
I tried very hard (but apparently failed) to convey a certain degree of cynicism
while also trying to encourage people to take more interest in trying to protect
their systems which would also go a long way to stopping many of them from
sending me viruses in their postings.
Many of the contributors to forums such as Birding-aus seem to have no
understanding of the virus problem whatsoever or perhaps don't really care.
At the same time it really annoys me how some people seem to have the attitude
that anti-virus software distributors are trying to 'con' everybody.
There has, no doubt, been examples of this in the past but in this regard these
companies are no worse than any other purveyor of software programs.
Some of the software applications I have purchased from 'leading' companies have
been absolute junk that any 'honest' developer would be totally ashamed of and
have obviously only been put on the market in the hope of preying on peoples
naivety and boosting the company's profits.
It is should be quite obvious that anti-virus companies don't need to invent
'mythical' viruses to create a perceived need for their products.
There are obviously enough different-thinking people out there in the real world
who are providing an actual need sufficient to ensure the viability of a
multitude of anti-virus companies!!
I saw the value in using an anti-virus program some time ago so this example of
what MAY be possible was not needed to convince me.
At this stage, all of the published information (which may have actually been
disseminated from the one source) indicates that any possible effects from this
'proof of concept' exercise would be virtually harmless, however, I will
continue to have an open mind on the subject.
It seems to me that just because something has not been done or, indeed, been
possible up until now doesn't mean it will never be done or never be possible.
You may have seen some or all of the articles at the following addresses.
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/perrun.html
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32perruna.html
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99522.htm
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.perrun.html
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/perrun.shtml
http://www.pspl.com/virus_info/win32/perrun.htm
For more search Google for: win32/perrun.
My anti-virus program contains definitions for at least one variant of the
w32Perrun virus.
At this stage my computer does not appear to contain the following files that
are claimed to be needed for the 'JPEG virus' to do its work:
Extrk.exe, Textrk.exe, REG.MP3.
Thank you for your comment on this topic.
It is always interesting to see how other people interpret and react to such
events.
Cheers
Bob Inglis
Woody point
Queensland
Australia
|
