full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <003d01c402ef$47920e10$2d2ea8c0@LUFKIN.DPSOL.COM>
From: purdy at tecman.com (Curt Purdy)
Subject: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses 

Valdis.Kletnieks wrote:

> > Ah, I wish...  An alternative is to allow only a
> proprietary extension
> > through, like .inc  Legitimate senders would rename the
> file, be it .exe
> > .doc .jpg, indicate in the body of the message what the
> true extension is,
> > and the receiver merely renames it.

> So let's see.. the same bozos who read the text part of the
> virus, get the password, and
> use that to unzip the rest of the virus won't read the text
> part, get the rename to do,
> and.....
>
> Color me dubious....

Methinks you misunderstand.  Only the proprietary extension, i.e. .inc or
.xyz or .whatever, would be allowed through, and since virus writers would
never use this extension, it would eliminate ALL viruses at the gateway.
The nice thing about this approach is that it completely eliminates the need
for any anti-virus on the mail server since all virus attachments are
automatically dropped without the need for scanning.  Quite a simple, yet
elegant solution, if I do say so myself.

Curt Purdy CISSP, GSEC, MCSE+I, CNE, CCDA
Information Security Engineer
DP Solutions

----------------------------------------

If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked.
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke