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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: psz at (Paul Szabo)
Subject: [inbox] Re: Re: E-Mail viruses

Curt Purdy <> wrote:

>>> 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.
> 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.

Yes, it eliminates a large class of viruses. But, it would not do
anything to "local" attacks (a virus modified specifically to handle
your particular setup; and if it becomes widely used then "real"
viruses will also do the same).

Also it does nothing to viruses that do not use attachments: attacks
on a "Subject:" buffer overflow, or a virus delivery via the web with
a link or "Content-type: message/external-body".

Also you might miss some attachments: "uuencoded block"s, or those
within incomplete "Content-type: message/partial" bits.

Within those limitations, it is a great idea to keep an organization
free from "common" attacks.


Paul Szabo -
School of Mathematics and Statistics  University of Sydney   2006  Australia

Powered by blists - more mailing lists