Hy all, i thought it whould be nice to post this:

Results of Complete Test, date and time 2004.09.15. 0:35:19 :

Testing C:\ volume WIN98SE serial 1D31-1CEA
Testing D:\ volume DATA serial 60E1-47C8
D:\ASM\FASMW\Z\FORUM\FASMENV.ZIP:\FASM.ZIP:\FASM\EXEFIND.COM Suspicion: unknown virus .EXE.COM
D:\ASM\FASMW\Z\FORUM\FASMENV2.ZIP:\FASM.ZIP:\FASM\EXEFIND.COM Suspicion: unknown virus .EXE.COM
D:\ASM\FASMW\Z\tutorials\LESZEDNI\ftp.phil.uni-sb.de\PUB\MSDOS\UTILS\CREAD212.ZIP:\READ.EXE:LZEXE Suspicion: unknown virus .EXE.COM

Test finished, duration 00:32:06.9 s
59302 objects tested, 3 found infected

ps.: i haven't encountered any false alarms yet, but you should take care with source- less programs
note: i have got unknown/not detected and/or polymorphic viruses before.

suggestion:
the administrator should scann the server for at least known viruses.

MATRIX

Why do you think this is REAL virus, not paranoia of an *unknown* AV program ?????

ask www.grisoft.com

i won't decompile them now, my virus infected directory is 22MB so far

MATRIX

Well, most AVs do heuristic analysis - they encounter some patterns of code and become paranoidal sometimes.
In this case IMHO it is good idea to determine which particular file is suspicious and check it manually and/or with other tool. (For example by this Online Virus Scanner)
Otherwise I see no reason to become so paranoid as AVs.

AFAIK, recently there is graphic attack.

Please upgrade your png to libpng-1.2.7, and if you use MS-windowsxp,please upgrade to winxp sp2.

http://libpng.sf.net
http://www.microsoft.com
or click windows update.

JPG virus/trojan using GDI+ security hole, so unluckily you visited some sites/ADs and see mal-formed jpgs you gonna get some crack!

--
PS: i dunno PNG library what version MS windows have. and dunno whether MS PNG library safe from the same exploit or not.

MS doesn't have png lib, they don't support png (check the accepts header from internet explorer, use eg php to make sure IE get gif's instead of png's -- IE never says it supports png _directly_ (it accepts everything ('*/*'), compare with eg firefox, it explicity says it supports certain formats)

IE6 supports PNG fairly well from my experience (it doesn't like transparency without hacks).

well, in other words IE6 doens't support PNGs really... only a subset of it. I don't understand why they don't add (((or steal the code for))) alpha transparency support, esp with WinXP etc where eye candy is what they seem to strive for (even if it's not the kind of eye candy that I like, I like candy but not all sorts ).