That still seems a bit "over-the-top". Sure, better safe than sorry, but I wouldn't just blindly delete any exe that I come into contact with (via email or otherwise). Especially on Linux, you can get archives zipped into an exe format that are unzipped via unzip -a. That is quite a common format in the Windows world, and I haven seen a few times within the Linux world also. Magic numbers can't tell it is an archive, so you would think it is just a regular binary, but I know for a fact Dell does many of their drivers in this format.
With the whole Intel thing, even through emulation, this could be a stretched argument. Sure, there are architecture-independent viruses, but I haven't heard of a virus that can attack on any platform through the architecture itself. I am sure that in the future, these will be common, but I don't think this is something that we should be worrying about now. Please correct me if I am wrong in saying this as I am not pretending to know everything about the virus infections, this is just from experience. On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 19:51 -0500, Derick Centeno wrote: > The point raised by Dennis is extremely relevant to this thread. The > exception of course is Linux which runs on the PowerPC or Cell > architecture. Only in that environment would Linux executables have no > effect as the infecting executables are designed for Linux and Windows > running on Intel compatibles and utilize specific functions, register > processing and calls to the Intel and compatible processor. > > Keeping in mind that there are emulators of all kinds, including even a > Linux emulator which functions within Windows, all of them share one > characteristic, they either run on Intel or emulate Intel. All of these are > susceptible to these infections and other malware. > > This is a pretty monstrous headache for the current computer system > marketplace which seems to function nearly entirely by relying on one > processor. I can hear the overwhelming sigh from many experts repeating to > themselves regarding this predicament, "I told them... long ago". To which > the only response now is, "Oh well..." > > The solution which Bill Maidment recommended earlier in this thread may be > the only reasonable approach for users of Intel systems to implement. If I > was using an Intel system I'd have to agree with him, better safe "than > scorched." > > All the best... > > On Jan 20, 2008 6:46 PM, Sarocet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dennis Peterson wrote: > > > Nobody has actually tested the files to see if they are Windows > > executables that I've > > > seen. It is entirely possible they could be Linux executables. File > > extensions don't > > > mean much on a Linux system but it seems from this thread a great way to > > pass around > > > Linux viruses is to tack on a .exe extension and a lot of people will > > ignore them to > > > their great peril. > > > > > > dp > > Well, if you ignore the file i don't see how it's going to run. > > Moreover, it's less likely you will write ./Foo.exe as > > you're already assuming by the extension that it wouldn't work, so why > > do it? > > _______________________________________________ > > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net > > http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net > http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
