Often times you will see antivirus companies naming virii and worm differently, particularly when the bugs first arrive on the scene. I was told by at least two different AV vendors that the companies try very hard not to name the bugs the same as the executable contained in the worm or virus. The reason as it was explained to me is that the AV companies don't want to give bug writers the satisfaction of seeing the name of their creation trumpeted all over the media. So, they generally tweak the spelling of the executable, so as not to give the virus writers the satisfaction and notoriety that can come with naming your own nastygram.
Often times you will see antivirus companies naming virii and worm differently, particularly when the bugs first arrive on the scene.
I was told by at least two different AV vendors that the companies try very hard not to name the bugs the same as the executable contained in the worm or virus.
The reason as it was explained to me is that the AV companies don't want to give bug writers the satisfaction of seeing the name of their creation trumpeted all over the media.
So, they generally tweak the spelling of the executable, so as not to give the virus writers the satisfaction and notoriety that can come with naming your own nastygram.
It gets worse if you try to install a new hard disk and then use something like Maxtor's imaging software to move your Win OS from the old drive over to the new. What invariably happens is that certain critical system files don't make it through the transfer.
I did this last month, only to find Windows Update no longer worked on my machine. I actually made it all the way up to Msft. Tier 3 tech support (the people who actually know how to fix stuff), and was told they'd had many reports of problems after imaging from a third-party ap.
I ended up having to do an in-place upgrade (two, actually). Windows Auto Update still doesn't work, but I can download updates from the WU web site no prob.
BEWARE!
Actually, if you'd bothered to read the description of the worm, you'd know that users can infect their machines - if they do not have the 2 1/2 year old IE patch installed - just by viewing the e-mail in an IE-friendly e-mail client that has HTML enabled by default.
This is directly from Symantec's description of the WORM:
"This worm exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express in an attempt to execute itself when you open or even preview the message."
Outlook would do the job nicely.
Actually, if you'd bothered to read the description of the worm, you'd know that users can infect their machines - if they do not have the 2 1/2 year old IE patch installed - just by viewing the e-mail in an IE-friendly e-mail client that has HTML enabled by default. Outlook would do the job nicely.
yeah, but keep in mind that the new EU VAT directive also eliminates the VAT charged on EU exports. So, now non-EU companies selling into Europe must charge VAT, but the reverse is not so. The shoe is now on the other foot.
One thing to keep in mind: come this summer, U.S.-based online retailers will be required to calculate the VAT for customers from European Union nations. This could further burden smaller online retailers who don't already have big-time tax collection and remittance programs in place.
Most of the wireless community networks mentioned here appear to be springing up along the Left Coast. Anyone know of similar networks being constructed on the other side of the country, particularly in the Washington, D.C., area?
Slashdot Mirror
Often times you will see antivirus companies naming virii and worm differently, particularly when the bugs first arrive on the scene. I was told by at least two different AV vendors that the companies try very hard not to name the bugs the same as the executable contained in the worm or virus. The reason as it was explained to me is that the AV companies don't want to give bug writers the satisfaction of seeing the name of their creation trumpeted all over the media. So, they generally tweak the spelling of the executable, so as not to give the virus writers the satisfaction and notoriety that can come with naming your own nastygram.
Often times you will see antivirus companies naming virii and worm differently, particularly when the bugs first arrive on the scene. I was told by at least two different AV vendors that the companies try very hard not to name the bugs the same as the executable contained in the worm or virus. The reason as it was explained to me is that the AV companies don't want to give bug writers the satisfaction of seeing the name of their creation trumpeted all over the media. So, they generally tweak the spelling of the executable, so as not to give the virus writers the satisfaction and notoriety that can come with naming your own nastygram.
It gets worse if you try to install a new hard disk and then use something like Maxtor's imaging software to move your Win OS from the old drive over to the new. What invariably happens is that certain critical system files don't make it through the transfer. I did this last month, only to find Windows Update no longer worked on my machine. I actually made it all the way up to Msft. Tier 3 tech support (the people who actually know how to fix stuff), and was told they'd had many reports of problems after imaging from a third-party ap. I ended up having to do an in-place upgrade (two, actually). Windows Auto Update still doesn't work, but I can download updates from the WU web site no prob. BEWARE!
Actually, if you'd bothered to read the description of the worm, you'd know that users can infect their machines - if they do not have the 2 1/2 year old IE patch installed - just by viewing the e-mail in an IE-friendly e-mail client that has HTML enabled by default. This is directly from Symantec's description of the WORM: "This worm exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express in an attempt to execute itself when you open or even preview the message." Outlook would do the job nicely.
Actually, if you'd bothered to read the description of the worm, you'd know that users can infect their machines - if they do not have the 2 1/2 year old IE patch installed - just by viewing the e-mail in an IE-friendly e-mail client that has HTML enabled by default. Outlook would do the job nicely.
more spam from sobig-infected PCs. can't wait
The Washington Post ran a story about this also this afternoon.
yeah, but keep in mind that the new EU VAT directive also eliminates the VAT charged on EU exports. So, now non-EU companies selling into Europe must charge VAT, but the reverse is not so. The shoe is now on the other foot.
One thing to keep in mind: come this summer, U.S.-based online retailers will be required to calculate the VAT for customers from European Union nations. This could further burden smaller online retailers who don't already have big-time tax collection and remittance programs in place.
Um, hello, can you say "Value Added Tax?" (VAT)? Think again, dude.
check out this National Gov. Assn. link and click on the map at the right of the screen. the states in blue are participating.
Most of the wireless community networks mentioned here appear to be springing up along the Left Coast. Anyone know of similar networks being constructed on the other side of the country, particularly in the Washington, D.C., area?