🚀 go-pugleaf

>From:    Robert McClenon <76476.337@CompuServe.COM>
>     I just discovered after twenty minutes of unpleasantness that
>SETVER.EXE, a feature of DOS 5.00, is implemented via SELF-MODIFYING
>CODE.

Actually, this is much better than earlier (beta) verions in which
SETVER modified other things (even nastier).

Since I did not bother to install SETVER, this is not a problem for me
and have not yet run into an application/game/etc that requires its
use.  Though I have heard rumors of such programs.

Further, one one teaches SETVER which (shouldn't be many) programs
require DOS to report/act like a different version to work, SETVER
should not be changing unless a new non-conforming program is added.

Even so, the rate should not be a problem, & the user should know that
something "legal" was done.

For some time, my feeling has been that "intelligent" anti-viral
software should be able to recognize when a program is allowed to
write to itself (SETVER, LIST) or to a limited subset of other
programs (WSCHANGE - WORDSTAR) & notify the user but not make a fuss
about it. Now if SETVER tries to modify LIST, I would be concerned,
but not when it modifies itself when I ask it to.

To me, strict checksum coverage of 98% of my files is "good enough"
(quantum economics) that not much safety would be lost if the other 2%
were permitted LIMITED privilege with notification. Heck, the whole
concept of "privilege" receives only lip service (and much
obfustication) from DOS.

IMHO, it would seem that MicroSoft had a choice: let SETVER modify
system files (tried & rejected in beta), a separate data file
(possible but must always be able to find it), or itself. Given all
the variables, I think they probably made the most efficient (but not
necessarily the most popular to anti-virus program writers) decision.

						Cooly,
							Padgett

Might be some one else's opinion also but probably not my employer's.