At 01:25 PM 8/21/99 -0400, Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. wrote: > >Norton Antivirus works two ways: It automatically looks for viruses when you >open an email message or an email enclosure (it does this all the time when >it is enabled). And you can run the program periodically to scan for >viruses. I also recommend that you update your antivirus software once a >week and then run the scan. Let me second Jeff's advice to have a good anti-virus program running. I have Norton 5.0 and it didn't even give me a chance to open the message with the virus. It warned me as the message (with the infected Happy99 attachment) was downloading and gave me several options, one of which was "delete immediately." These programs are so cheap now and updating the virus definitions is so easy (a one-click process) that anyone who uses the internet (everyone on PedTalk, by definition) needs one. At 02:23 PM 8/21/99 -0400, Daniel Frieling wrote: >Final lesson of the day, then class dismissed, just repeating a general >safety warning: many people send all sorts of cute programs around via >email. Most of these have unknown origins. Most are completely safe to run, >someone was having fun, wrote something cute, and sent it around. But >unfortunately, the criminal element is out there, and YES, this is a >criminal violation, a criminal felony in most states. So, does the cute >program you are running do anything you will be sorry for or is it just a >cute program. Don't take chances, there is NOTHING out there that is so >cute that it just must be seen. The risk of infection just isn't worth it, >unless you enjoy reloading your operating system (and putting toothpicks >under your fingernails). Danny, before you dismiss class and we return to pediatric issues, can we take advantage of your computer knowledge a little more. How good a job do you think the standard anti-virus programs do at identifying infected attachments before they are run? IOW, if we receive one of those "cute little programs" and scan the program for viruses (with "scan compressed files" enabled and updated virus definitions), would you still recommend trashing the attachment if it comes up negative? What are the odds of the anti-virus software missing a virus under these circumstances? And if it misses a virus while the attachment is still a compressed .exe file, should the anti-virus software then be able to identify it (and give us an opportunity to delete it before damage is done) once the program begins to run. I recognize that computer virus hackers and anti-virus programmers are in a continuous game of cat-and-mouse (and there are times when the hackers are a step ahead), but what are your general feelings about the effectiveness of anti-virus software? Thanks for any thoughts. Michael Sachs, M.D.