Slashdot Mirror

The batteries aren't sealed in. Two screws, a suction cup to get the tight-tolerance screen up, and you're in. Pentalobe drivers are available at Walmart.

The batteries do have a removable adhesive tape, similar to 3M Command Adhesive. There are couple more screws inside that secure connectors, including the battery connector. That's really all there is to it.

It takes a couple of tools to replace the battery; I have to use a screwdriver to replace the batteries on my toddler's toys too.

Apple doesn't use glue, per se, anymore (they use adhesive strips that are similar to the 3M "Command" adhesive)

In other words, after saving the world from the DOS prompt back in 1984, Apple is back to using the DOS prompt.

But M$ gave us BAT files, which are terrible.

In principle, BAT files are shell scripts. But in practice, I agree that Command.com remained underpowered as a shell. In fact, it was so underpowered that the maker of Scotch tape bought the name to use it for adhesive hanging hooks. Cmd.exe in Windows NT family fixed this somewhat, but as I understand it, Microsoft's command prompt didn't fully meet the power of UNIX shells until PowerShell.

it took him three months to figure out how to reload command.com

Fortunately, learning about damage-free hanging solutions from the makers of Scotch tape is a bit easier now.

Instead of using glue that's difficult to remove, why not use the same stuff that's used in those 3M Command removable wall hangers? When you need to separate the components, just give the little strip a tug and the glue pops right out!

That still makes it a .COM language. As in COMMAND.COM, though...

What do strips to hang things on the wall have to do with Perl?

But seriously though, Perl is a .exe language not a .com language because its interpreter is bigger than 65536 bytes. So my best guess is that by ".com language" you meant a language in which programs are stored as source code and parsed when they are run, as opposed to compilation ahead of time.

I thought Canadians spoke English & French, not German... http://command.com/

Too bad we don't still use DOS. You could clean up with command.com.

http://www.command.com/

It is hard to take this post seriously when all it does is bash Windows.

The article doesn't bash Windows the way Cygwin bashes Windows. Cygwin bash is better than the alternative.

you don't have to make it that using Windows is the crime of the century

For the poor, it is. A one-seat Windows XP license costs $300. If you use Windows without paying for it, you have committed either theft or copyright infringement.

Plus, you're not timothy.

is this one: http://www.command.com

MOV for movie sites

Apple would love this.

Mendax Veritas dun said:

Symantec more or less owns that market segment at this point, aside from Network Associates, who are even more loathesome.

Well, they aren't the only ones in the market, really--F-Prot, which comes in two different flavours (the Data Fellows "Finnish Mix" and the Command Software "British Remix"), is damned good, beats the pants off of both McAffee and NAV, and hasn't been bought out by either company (largely because at least Data Fellows also sells other security software like firewall programs, SSH clients and SSH servers for NT, etc.). Also worth noting is the Best Damn Antivirus Software Money Can Buy (according to alt.comp.virus--and by the way, it's not just antivirus writers who hang out there; there are a fair number of virus coders who hang out there as well), AVP...hell, they've even got a version for Linux for folks who run servers (who want to scan the stuff they're serving for Nasty Stuff).

By no means are you restricted to what Network Solutions or Symantec have to offer. There's other stuff out there that's actually better but less well known about (wow...kinda like BeOS and *BSD and Linux, eh? ;).

For most people, I recommend not using anti-virus software at all. AV is a non-solution to something that is mostly a non-problem.

I wouldn't say it's entirely a non-problem. In a home environment, with a clueful user who doesn't download strange binaries without checking the source twice, and especially if he's using an OS for which very few viruses exist (such as BeOS or Linux or *BSD)...and more importantly anymore, never uses certain office suites out of Redmond with extensive macro capabilities including hooks to Visual Basic (which has hooks to system calls in Win32) nor uses programs with extensive HTML and Javascript capability to read email, then yes, it'd be a non-problem.

There are cases where it could be a problem, though. Say...work environments that have to use Office 97 and accept Word and Excel documents from Goddess-only-knows where, or home users who dabble in warez because they don't feel like paying $200 for the latest killer game, or work environments where people take stuff from home and put it on the boxes, or people who are new to the net (and don't know about stuff like Good Computer Hygiene) and get offered this "cool South Park screensaver" from an email address that belongs to their friend on the net (and they are completely and utterly unaware that said program is in fact the "Pretty Park" trojan/worm that mails itself to everyone on your Outlook Express address list)...in those cases, yes, it could be a problem.

Now add in those folks who have to take home stuff from work. Now add in the number of folks at work who are the clueless folks who will blindly run that "Pretty Park" executable, and/or have warez'd copies of Diablo, and/or take stuff to work to show folks how "cool" it is...and you have to take Word documents home to work on them, or Excel spreadsheets...and think of all the OTHER companies your company might be sharing Word documents with...'s pretty scary, really, if you think about it.

I'll touch some more on this below...

t's a non-solution because most AV software protects only against known viruses, and is therefore useless against anything newer than the most recent signature update you've installed. Of course, the kind of virus you are most likely to encounter is a new one that the virus scanners don't know about yet, so what good is your scanner doing? (There have been attempts to develop techniques of recognizing "virus-like behavior", but the eternal problem with that is that there is nothing that most viruses do that isn't also done by perfectly harmless, useful, legitimate software, especially debugging tools.)

By and large, antivirus software isn't for us who know how to use debugging tools :) It's for folks who might be new to computers, or who have to take stuff home from work and run it, or who might want to be double-safe that the program they just downloaded doesn't have anything nasty in it.

Yes, some TSRs and some programs will cause antivirus software to hiccup. I'll also note that these are (in the case of most folks--not necessarily us techy ones) few and far between. It also depends specifically on the heuristics that the program is looking for--I've heard that Norton Antivirus tends to give quite a number more false positive alarms than AVP or F-Prot do, for instance (in fact, on alt.comp.virus it's recommended that if you run Norton or McAffee Antivirus (another AV program bad for false positives in heuristics mode) you double-check it by running F-Prot or AVP in heuristics mode because the latter two programs are far less susceptible to false positives).

As it is, for binary viruses and trojans heuristics can work well; for Word macro viruses (which are the single largest category of viruses today, by the way) they're nearly foolproof. As Word macro viruses are a far worse problem nowadays, this is probably a Good Thing.

It's mostly a non-problem because viruses just aren't that common and are, for the most part, easily avoided by simply not being stupid. I haven't run an anti-virus package on any of my computers since I left the Norton AntiVirus development team in 1993, and have never been hit by a virus in the almost seven years since then.

I'll assume you practice Good Computer Hygiene (not downloading strange binaries, etc.) I do have some questions for you, though...

Do you run Microsoft Office? Do you accept Word documents from possibly untrusted sources? (The single largest category of viruses and worms, not to mention the one with the most growth by far, is Office macro viruses and worms (especially Word macro viruses which often are also worms in that they have specific hooks to common mail applications to enable spread by email)...in 1993, Word macro viruses were literally unheard of. The first "proof of concept" Word macro virus appeared in 1997, and eventually spread to the wild. A year later there were over 200 known Word macro viruses, and the first Excel macro viruses were known. In 1998-ish the first known Word macro worm was discovered. As of now (early 2000) there are over four thousand Office macro viruses (the vast majority Word macro viruses, and a fair number of which can be considered worms as well; more than a few also are "droppers" for destructive payloads), depending on whom one is talking to (some would put it higher, some would put it closer to two thousand)--literally more Word macro viruses and worms exist than binary-based viruses at present, and it is becoming a fairly serious problem in businesses (a Word macro virus/worm brought the email systems of many businesses to a screeching halt last year because of all the load--one of those companies just happened to be [ironically] Microsoft). The largest portion of databases for antivirus software are for Word macro viruses; I suggest you take a look down at Data Fellows' virus-lists and see just how many have the little prefix "W97/M" (Word 97 macro virus)...it's really a staggering number. Binary-based viruses like CIH are by far the exception now; most folks doing viruses are either working in Word macro viruses or are working on worms (such as mIRC worms, or trojans that are worms such as "Pretty Park").

Fortunately for antivirus software authors, most Word macro viruses have specific infection routines and use specific Visual Basic calls (Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom [HAH!], decided to allow one to use Visual Basic hooks in Office macro code...which is a security disaster waiting to happen, as Visual Basic has hooks into the operating system itself) to do nastier things (like the "propogation behavior" of Word macro worms, or droppers for destructive payloads for the nastier Word macro viruses--in a way, they behave more like trojans than viruses), so it's pretty easy to kill such things with heuristics. (It's also pretty easy to kill such things if you don't enable macros, or you use stuff like StarOffice to read the file. But that's another issue :)

(Unfortunately, it seems the bulk of the business world not only uses Win95/98 or WinNT, but also Office, and also Outlook Express--which helps Word macro worms spread like wildfire through a network (by the way, Word macro worms are having the same growth Word macro viruses had in the beginning, and some have been found with destructive payloads--things are going to get interesting indeed). Even worse, Word macro viruses are cross-platform--they can infect Word on Winboxen, Macs, and presumably any other platform that can run Microsoft Word and/or a word processor that recognises Word documents and Word macros (fortunately, most of the Word macro worms can spread only under WinXX and largely only if Outlook Express exists as a mailer, though some can also use Eudora [the other big mailer], but I don't expect this to last very long--and the Mac users can still infect documents with the worms).)

Do you have to share computers at work with anyone? (Their computer could be crawling with viruses. Just because you don't do anything stupid doesn't mean your co-workers won't.)

Does your workplace have a strict "no-files-or-disks-from-home, no-programs-from-home" policy? (If not, they're wide open unless they're using a scanner. Again, you might practice Good Computer Hygiene, but others won't necessarily do so.)

If you do consultation work, are all your boot-disks and install material on non-writable media like CD's? (If they've got a boot-sector virus, they can infect ZIP disks and floppies.)

Are you absolutely certain that all of the software you get is virus-free? (About the only way you CAN be certain is if you compile and run it yourself--and even then, if the compiler itself has virus code, you still might not be safe (cref. a proof-of-concept of this where hidden backdoor code was included in early C compilers for Unix--if code was removed, the compiler simply reinserted it at compile-time; the only way to remove it for certain was to compile from a known clean copy, and reportedly the backdoor generated WAS used a few times). Commercial software has been released accidentially with virus code before (most infamously, a demo CD included with a PC game magazine that was infected with CIH); hell, computers have literally come preinstalled that had viruses (there was a rather infamous case where either Dell or IBM (memory fails me on which one) actually sold some laptops which were infected with CIH--it turns out that the standard disk image used to copy the OS and apps onto the drives had been infected with CIH somehow). There are now known worms that can infect a computer using Outlook Express (with HTML and ActiveX extensions turned on) without even opening the mail itself (just by previewing the mail). Most Internet worms propogate themselves anymore by sending copies to everyone on an address-book list in email clients (the vast majority of Word macro worms, and even some "trojan" worms like PrettyPark), or by mass-DCC send (most mIRC worms propogate this way--the worms take advantage of insecurities in mIRC scripting language).

Do you serve files for other people? (If so--even Word documents--if you don't check them before offering for download, you may unwittingly pass along infected files. Again, infected files don't even necessarily have to be binaries anymore--the vast majority of viruses anymore are Word macro viruses and worms, and the few actual binary viruses tend to be spread either through warez or as "trojans" or worms.)

You see...it's not as easy keeping virus-free as one thinks. In fact, if you accept foreign Word documents at ALL and don't have either a damned good virus-scanner or macros turned off completely, you are essentially wide open to getting a rather nasty case of computer VD. Even more so if you use Outlook Express, or (God Forbid) accept attachments of *.exe or *.doc files in email, or accept HTML-email or have Javascript or ActiveX enabled in your email browser.

It makes sense for people producing executable images of software for distribution to have a scanner handy just to be as sure as possible that the software they're giving out isn't infected, but most of us aren't in that situation.

1) Even commercial software has been infected--there is more than one documented case of this.

2) As stated above, things have changed a LOT in the world of viruses since 1993 :)

2a) The major problem, with rare exception (CIH, which really is novel in that it attempts to over-write BIOS info in boxen with flashable BIOSes), is not binary-based viruses like Stoned or Jerusalem (the two biggies in 1993, by the way). The biggies, by far, are Word macro viruses (literally more Word macro viruses exist now than binary ones exist now or in 1993, a fair number have nasty droppers or destructive payloads, and an increasing number can also be classified as worms as they propogate through vulnerabilities in a number of Internet programs [a short list--Outlook Express, Free Agent (Usenet client), Eudora, etc.]).

2b) With the exception of CIH, the major problem with malicious binaries isn't with viruses anymore but with Trojans of various types. The vast majority of these may be classified either as worms (i.e. PrettyPark.exe, the latest in this line) or as attempts to pass off Back Orifice (a program designed by Cult of the Dead Cow to spotlight rather serious security flaws in Win9X, and which can be used to remotely control another computer--often without the victim knowing, as Back Orifice hides its processes and tries to make it difficult to uninstall).

3) The single largest increase of ANY viruses or malicious programs today is in the form of worms. Many of these worms are essentially multiplatform and the vast majority target the single largest used office suite in businesses today. Many of these companies must share Word documents and other traffic with other sites, often untrusted traffic. In a way, the Internet has been the best thing since sliced bread for propogation of viruses (keep in mind, too, that when you left Symantec the vast majority of "program trading" was at universities and most of the "warez" traffic as well as virus traffic was at universities and on small, members-only BBS's; there were still roughly an equal number of *.edu and *.com sites online, the plague known as AOL had yet to hit the net (that occured in 1994 or 1995, and AOL has always had a wee bit of a script-kiddie/V/C community), and the Internet had NOWHERE near the penetration it has now--it was next to impossible for worms to spread the way they do now, much less Word macro viruses (again, keep in mind that macro viruses of ANY kind were unheard of before 1997).)

4) In 1993, a lot of companies still used dumb terminals or didn't have much computer access. Now, a large number of folks have computers--frequently connected to the Internet--and they frequently have to take home work and such. Many of these folks don't practice Good Computer Hygiene--they run programs their friends send them online (unaware that many worms use address-lists specifically to propogate), while spreading rumours like "Good Times" because they literally don't know any better. Sometimes this even extends to the folks running the boxen--a number of sites use NT or even Windows 98 to administer networks, and many of these folks don't use proper security precautions (like not allowing executables to be installed, etc.). 5) The fact that so many folks ARE on the net with Win95/Win98 boxen has to be a major factor in how viruses are spreading, and especially worms (which had pretty much died out in the days of tht Morris Worm and WANK-Worm until Word macro viruses started coming out). Win95 and Win98 are notoriously insecure--in essence, everyone (even on a multi-user system) has root/administrator access, most of the Internet applications for these systems--especially those from Microsoft--are not exactly designed with security in mind, the major office suite for these boxes (Office 97) has major security flaws in its scripting language insofar as using it in a networked environment...the major scripting language for Microsoft-based Internet apps, ActiveX (which has even been incorporated into the OS in Win98) is so insecure that nearly every security site recommends disabling it...also, Win9X is designed for people who are complete and utter computer virgins, who aren't going to know about computer security and who are lucky to know how to install a program without some kind of installation-wizard. It's an OS designed for the clueless, and it's user-friendly to the point of sacrificing security...it also doesn't help that Internet apps (by and large) were actually an afterthought to the OS, added when the Internet exploded in popularity (especially the World Wide Web).

I'd even go so far as to say that, as designed, Win95 and Win98 are outright unsafe to use in a networked environment without some sort of protection both against malicious programs and scripts AND against malicious parties trying to gain outside access. Win9X was not designed as a multi-user, networkable OS; it was originally designed as a home OS for the newbie user who needs stuff to be point-and-click simple, and networkability was an afterthought added when Microsoft found out people actually wanted that Internet thing. Security has always been an afterthought, if it's been thought of at all; to make it secure actually requires either add-ons (like antivirus software and intrusion-detection software) or keeping it off a network period. Yes, security really IS that bad with Windows9X. (NT and Win2000 are considerably more secure, but that's partly because they were designed as networkable OS's and they do have security features in light of this. They are also somewhat less user-friendly, especially in tighter security settings (many WinNT sites have EVERYONE with admin access because some things become unusuable in lower settings).)

It's not just the Microsoft apps for Win9X that have security bugs, either--the whole idea of running untrusted apps is a Bad Thing (there REALLY needs to be a "sandbox" area for untrusted apps; moxe *nixes do this with multiple users and security settings, and Java does it by running it in a virtual machine with no direct hardware access). Eudora has had serious security bugs that worms exploit. mIRC, a major IRC client for Windows boxen, has had periodic troubles with script worms (in fact, before Word97 worms became popular, mIRC was the major target of worms on the net). WinGate, a popular telnet server for Windows boxen, is so horribly broken that early versions have essentially no security whatsoever and can be used as an anonymous relay host by Bad Folks because it has no logging whatsoever (and it HAS been used like this by Bad Folks, which makes it a MAJOR pain in the arse to try to track them down). Most FTP servers for Windows boxen can be cracked. Nearly any Internet-capable program for Windows can be made to cause the system to crash by simply sending "file://C|/con" (with HTML browsers and email clients that parse HTML like Outlook Express and Eudora), or requesting "C:\con" (with FTP clients)...hell, you could probably write malicious ActiveX code to do the same thing, or add that as a dropper to a Word macro virus. This is partly the fault of the programs, but it's partly a sign that the OS in and of itself is horribly mis-suited for network use.

In short, there've been a lot of deep, almost fundamental changes in the world of viruses and malicious code, and more importantly, the dominant means by which they spread and the dominant "host" they breed in to begin with.

Btw, the best source for free, up-to-date information on viruses (and even more importantly virus hoaxes, which greatly outnumber viruses) is the Computer Virus Myths web site.

I wouldn't say virus myths outnumber actual viruses (I think the number of Word macro viruses slightly beats the number of variants of "Good Times"/"Jessica Maddick", etc. :) but Kumite's a good site. (Hell, I recommended it in my last post. :) There IS bad stuff out there, though (especially if you are misfortunate enough to have to use Win9X + Outlook Express + Office 97) and "computer condoms" never hurt. "Computer safe sex" (and yes, I posted a number of tips for that too) never hurts, either. Combine the two and you shouldn't have trouble. :)

Alex Bischoff (not to be confused with the former "TV manager" of a certain wrestling actor's troupe in Atlanta) dun said:

That's not a bad idea, but what AV would you recommend? A product with the ability to auto-update its virus definitions at regular intervals would be a plus.

Command Antivirus has live updates for registered users; if memory serves, so does the Data Fellows version of F-Prot. (Notably: both of these use the F-Prot AV engine (damn near the best antivirus engine you can get next to AVP, and if memory serves they're even using part of the AVP engine in the latest versions) and the Data Fellows version comes in a package called F-Secure which also includes some very neat security toys.)

I don't know whether AVP has live updates or not, but I'd recommend it nonetheless; AVP is quite literally the best antivirus program one can get for Windows, bar none, and they do have trial versions (good for thirty days) for download...the registered version is not terribly expensive (around $25-30 if I remember right) and it is money well spent...if memory serves, AVP actually updates their virus list weekly, too, and updates are available on their website. If one is serious about antivirus protection I'd seriously recommend getting a copy of it...

As it is, if one is serious about antiviral protection anyways, it never hurts to have two antivirus programs on board. You use one for the standard protection which isn't quite as sensitive/more prone to false alarms like Norton or McAffee, and if that alerts you bring out the heavy-duty tools like AVP or F-Prot. (Or, if you're like me and can get both, you use Command Antivirus (read: F-Prot under a different label ;) for the main scan and AVP for the heavy guns--I've only had to do that once, when an older version of Command Antivirus didn't like a newer database update [basically they'd changed the format--no biggie, just get the upgrade])

It never hurts to practice computer "safe sex", though--I've never had virus problems, because I'm careful to the point of being neurotic :) Here goes a list of good antiviral techniques:

Don't enable HTML mail or Javascript in mail--this keeps you safe from malicious code that may activate downloads of worms that target Outlook Express, etc.

If possible, don't use Microsoft products like IE or Outlook Express or Office--there are a LOT of serious security bugs, even in the latest versions of Outlook Express and IE, that enable one to download malicious code like worms--sometimes without expressly clicking to accept (such as some worms that specifically target Outlook Express). Office, and specifically Microsoft Word 97, is downright infamous for macro viruses and worms--in fact, the single largest category of viruses anymore are Word macro viruses (and it's also the largest growth category--the year after the first Word "proof of concept" macro virus was released, there were more than 200 known in the wild--now it's something like 4000). In fact, Win95/Win98 actually have security flaws in the OS itself that allow such things to spread easily...

If you must use Microsoft products, stick with the maximum security settings you can get away with--Don't enable macros in Office and don't accept documents with macros unless they go through a reliable virus-scanner first (if possible, encourage people to send stuff in RTF or text format; Excel users, try to stick to tab or comma-delimited formatting, as Excel macro viruses are an increasing problem). Set MSIE and Outlook Express to their maximum security settings. Do not use ActiveX unless absolutely necessary (there are serious security bugs in ActiveX as compared with Java)--at the least do not allow untrusted ActiveX applets to run. Consider using more secure OS's if possible (for Microsoft-only shops, this may entail going from Win98 to WinNT or Win2000). In WinNT or Win2000 environments, only give supervisor access to those who really need it and set others to lower levels where binaries cannot be installed.

Do not read untrusted Word or Excel documents, or run untrusted executables--this expressly includes your friends--"Trusted" here means "downloaded from a known, clean, virus-free source" or "run through a reliable virus-scanner". There are a rather surprising number of worms and trojans (including more than one case of Back Orifice being distributed via a trojan sent by email, as well as cases of DDOS (distributed denial of service) clients being distributed in this fashion). This includes anything gotten in email, ICQ, etc. (Business environments--if accepting resumes by email, you may seriously want to consider asking clients to send resumes in plain text or RTF format. This may not be as pretty, but it's easier for clients to send you resumes this way and it eliminates problems with Word macro viruses.) Again, WinNT shops probably want to strongly consider limiting supervisor and administrator access to those who need it and set everyone else to levels where binaries cannot be installed (the misuse of administrator levels is one major way in which WinNT shops get infected--allWord macro viruses work on NT, and a fair amount of Win32 viruses do as well).

Get a good virus scanner and use it regularly --Norton AntiVirus is probably on the low end as far as "good virus scanners" go. I personally recommend one of the F-Prot based ones or AVP; most over on alt.comp.virus would recommend AVP first and one of the F-Prot based ones secondly. (Most also recommend you use at least two virus scanners, one for regular use and one as a backup/sanity check.) Alt.comp.virus has a lot of good info on viruses and the good and bad in antivirus software, anyways. :)

Consider using other security programs--There are firewall-type and intrusion detection programs even for Win95/Win98 systems such as Jammer--Jammer, in particular, acts as a firewall and detects things like attempted Back Orifice scans, etc. As Win95/Win98 is notoriously insecure, it's a good idea to give it any more security if you can.

Don't trade in warez--This may seem like child's play to most of us, I'm sure, but in home and even in business environments there are a lot of folks who do deal in warez. Most warez anymore (at least the downloaded kind, not the "burning a friend's copy of Win98 to CD" kind) seems to be from Russia, Brazil and China, which also happen to be rather large H/C/V centres. (It's worth noting here that it's widely thought that CIH escaped into the wild from Taiwanese warez posted to one of the Usenet warez groups that just happened to be infected with CIH; it turns out the author or a friend of the author was in one of the major warez groups.) I can't state strongly enough in regards to this that if you absolutely must use or trade warez, please for Cthulhu's sake scan the damn stuff before installing it or trading it with others so you don't infect yourself or others.

Don't assume that commercial software or "minority" OS's are immune to viruses or don't need virus-scans--Commercial software has been released before that was infected with viruses (including several demo CD's). Macs have several viruses to contend with, at least one virus is known to specifically target both WinXX and Macs, and Macs are still susceptible to Word macro viruses (and probably IRC worms, if a version of mIRC exists for Macs); at least three "proof of concept" viruses for Linux do exist, including one which apparently tries to gain root privs to perpetuate itself, and even aside from this Linux boxen are commonly used as servers for files for other OS's. You still want to virus-scan even that copy of Diablo II that you got; folks will be happier if Linux servers scan executable files for viruses. (By the way, yes, antivirus software for Linux does exist; AVP has ported its antivirus scanner to Linux, and actually has the downloads for free last I checked.)

Keep your antivirus software up to date--This is a given, and "live updates" such as featured with NAV and CAV are very nice in this regards. Don't wait for the news report on the next Worm from Hell to update, either. Monthly is a minimum, and preferably more often than that if you can (weekly is good :).

Make sure others follow these same "good computer hygiene" rules--If you run a business, explain why you have policies against people installing stuff from home computers, running executables, etc. If you're at home, explain to folks why you don't accept executables (even of that neat "dancing baby" thing) sent by mail, or HTML mail, or Word or Excel files sent by mail. Encourage others to install and use antivirus software and other security programs.

Don't panic--Panic just spreads stuff like that damned "Good Times" hoax. If someone spreads stuff like that, point them both to a site like Data Fellows which has up-to-date listings of viruses--or, preferably, the alt.comp.virus WildList, pointed to in the ACV FAQ over at ftp.uu.net and your favourite Usenet FAQ archives--and to a site like Virus Myths which has a nice list of hoaxes, etc. (so does Data Fellows, but Kumite's a bit friendlier on that); this is probably the best defense against "meme viruses" like "Good Times" that you can get ;)