🚀 go-pugleaf

In a similar vein, on purchasing my second-to-last computer two years ago,
it quickly became infected with the junkie com-resident virus.  Skipping
over the weeks of fixing required due to an infected virus scan disk, the
virus was believed to be benign.  The problem was that although it was
believed that com files were not adversely affected, the only one that was
affected was th Win95 Win.COM file, killing any attempt at booting.
The only benign virus is an erased one.

Mitch wrote in message <6lnihm$ik7$1@llama.teragen.com.au>...
>In article duck@sophos.com says...
>>
>>
>>> So Stoned copying the original MBR to 0,0,7 should be safe, right?
>>
>>*Should* be.
>>
>>If you believe in "benign viruses", you'll believe that Stoned (or any
>>other MBR virus which overwrites one of the sectors in Track 0 Head 0,
>>usually unused) is benign. No such thing.
>>
>
>>Example: back in the days when Stoned was common, there were *lots* of
>>of Olivetti M24s around -- they shipped with a version of Olivetti DOS
>
>>which started the C: drive at Track 0, Head 0, Sector 2. So 0.0.7 was
>>very much in use (part of the FAT!) on those machines.
>
>Olivetti DOS 3.30 was quickly damaged for this reason. However, the
>way some virus "experts" in this thread clearly demonstrate their
>lack of expertise, is the total ignorance displayed with regard to
>Stone's fatal affect on numerous backup & security software packages
>(example: FastBack ) which caused a huge amount of data to be
>lost. As I previously stated, the original Stone virus _still_ has
>the ability to cause problems. Even the printing of the
>standard ibm character set lined message of the original can pull down the
>latest version of Windows (98 b3.) and (albeit indirectly) cause file
damage!
>Is that a modern enough o/s for you guys ? :)
>
>
>>How wrong you can be when you rely on "should be" :-)
>>
>>No such thing as a "benign virus". So there...
>
>Agreed!!
>
>Mitch.
>
>