🚀 go-pugleaf

Once upon a time,  Michael Salem <4ms2u$ms@michaels.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Me:
>> >I expect a great surge of viruses (more accurately, worms) like Love 
>> >Letter, now the idea is in the public domain.
>> 
>Andrew Brydon wrote:
>
>> So were Melissa and Chernobyl something that didn't happen? Users are
>> inherently gullible/forgetful/naive/stupid (pick one or more) which
>> is why so many people still caught/transmitted LoveLetter only a year
>> after other major outbreaks. Same basic cause/mechanism. Nothing
>> learned!
>
>They didn't have the combination of extreme contagiousness and 
>harmfulness that Love Letter has. I read about Melissa in the 
>newspapers; I heard from several people who received LL. While it 
>would be nice to have an argument about this, and I'd like to be 
>proved wrong, indications so far is that LL has been an inspiration 
>and I'm right.
>
So far as I understand, the basic mechanism for infection was identical:
i.e. a attachment based executable that utilised Outlook's address book
and automated email facilities.

However, four main differences: Melissa ran via a MS Word macro, rather
than VBScript; Melissa had no specific damaging payload, apart from the
disruption to mail servers; the LoveLetter subject matter is more
likely to inspire people to open the attachment without thinking;
the LoveLetter attachment was not a Word file (as Melissa), which is
"known" to be dangerous, but *appeared* to be a TXT file, especially to
those with file extensions turned off (a common default).

Of course with logarithmic internet growth there are LOTS more
people on line compared to last year as well. Nevertheless, I am sure
a study of why LoveLetter appears to have been more widespread than
Melissa is probably worth a PhD or two to some researcher! <G>
-- 
Andrew Brydon
Life is just the beta-version of death