Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   This by you is news?

   

   Tom J., Nov 14th, 2003 @ 2:16pm

   
   

   Most corporations have been doing this for YEARS. There are alternatives, called the web/FTP/etc for transferring executable binaries. When e-mail worms try to use secondary distributors for the executable code the infection can be stopped by killing that secondary source(s). Such worms have already been stopped this way, whereas the pure e-mail ones spread because too many ISPs don't block EXEs or even virus scan.
   
   Blocking e-mail executables currently stops most every major e-mail infector, including new variants as they pop up. A small price to pay, and again, e-mail was not designed for trading programs in the first place.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   ZIP

   

   Beck, Nov 14th, 2003 @ 2:27pm

   
   

   The standard way around this is to zip the executable files before sending them. Of course now I have started to receive emails with attached ZIP files that contain a virus. But the fight continues, because my new 2004 virus software scans the contents of zip files before the files are unzipped.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2003 @ 2:59pm

   
   

   seems to me that blocking executables that won't be executed automatically by an e-mail client is unnecessary. An individual clueless enough to execute such a file will also execute it if it arrives inside zip format.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: ZIP

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2003 @ 3:08pm

   
   

   Outlook actually blocks zip files with executables or script files in them, the only real way around it is to rename the files. For example: runme.exe becomes runme.ex_
   
   This is how we've been currently working around it, but it would take work to execute it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment