"and one more question" or "viry" — ZXNet «zx.spectrum»

From Faultless To All 26 July 1997

Hello, Max!

Thursday July 24 1997 08:49 Max Mokry liked answering Kostya Volkov:

MM> So the famous video maker has appeared here. :)
MM> What, Kostya, did you want to make a viper for Specky? :))))))))

By the way, what about writing vir for IS-DOS?
It seems like it should work for it? What kind of computer is it without viruses?

2 Reminder: will you take it? The best solution would be to build it into a copier...
Or better yet, into an IS-DOS formatter.

[ Team HeHeHe ]

From Andrew Mikheyev To All 27 July 1997

F> By the way, what about writing a vir for IS-DOS?
F> It seems like it should work for it?
F> What kind of computer is it without viruses?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Viruses are a vice of MS-DOS. On a Mac, for example, only a couple of viruses are known; under Win'95 there are none at all, and there won't be any. Under NT - even more so. So the number of viruses on a computer is far from being proportional to the quality of the operating system.

Regards, Andrew. Sunday July 27 1997 21:18.

From Roman Alexandrov To All 28 July 1997

F> It looks like this should work for him? And what kind of computer is it without viruses?

I wrote that a non-resident file virus is quite simple to implement.

IMHO a boot virus is also not difficult, but a resident one will probably be a little more complicated
. I didn’t think about stealth and polymorphs.....

[skipped]

Have a nice connection.
Roman.

28 Jul 97, already 03:05

From Evgeny Milun To All 28 July 1997

And if you scrap on bash knock, what lanyard will be tied? (C) Anecdote.
Hu, poppouy-poppobooby. Hapishi vipus. Only then do not take offense ...

Good luck ! Evgeny.

From Roman Alexandrov To All 30 July 1997

F>> What kind of computer is it without viruses?

AM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Viruses are a vice of MS-DOS.

Not only...

AM> On a Mac,
AM> for example, only a couple are known there are no viruses, under Win'95 there are none at all, and
AM> there won't be any.

First of all, it already exists, it recently appeared, and the new version of Doctor
Web has already been sharpened against it. Go to the Dialogue site, there is information about this virus there.
And secondly, you forgot about WinWord viruses.

AM> Under NT - even more so.

They wrote under 95, where there is a guarantee that they will not write under NT, especially considering its
holey...

[skipped]

Have a nice one connections.
Roman.

30 Jul 97, already 01:55

From Michael Lihovidov To All 31 July 1997

AM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Viruses are a vice of MS-DOS. On the Mac,
AM>, for example, only a couple of viruses are known; under Win'95 there are none at all, and there won't be any
AM>. Under NT - even more so. So the number of viruses on a computer is far from
AM> proportional to the quality of the operating system.

What about Unix?

Long life and an easy death to you
---------==ЁЁ Michael, aka Pilat YЁ==--

From Andrew Mikheyev To All 2 August 1997

AM>> will not happen. Under NT - even more so. So the number of viruses on a computer is far
AM>> not proportional to the quality of the operating system.

ML> What about Unix?

I can’t say anything about Unix. Alas, I have never worked with it, and in general
I know little about this OS.

With respect, Andrew. Saturday August 02 1997 11:46.

From Alexander Mudretsov To All 3 August 1997

AM> Mac, for example, only knows a couple of viruses; under Win'95 there are none at all
AM> and there won't be any.
Who told you that there are no viruses under Win32? The virus code under 95 is much
more complex, but they also exist.

Alexander Mudretsov, e-mail: sa...@free.jesby.tstu.ru