home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!news
- From: kratz%orville@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Kratz)
- Newsgroups: comp.virus
- Subject: SVC 6.0 not rem. by F-PROT206a (PC)
- Message-ID: <0008.9212212018.AA02123@barnabas.cert.org>
- Date: 18 Dec 92 17:01:35 GMT
- Sender: virus-l@lehigh.edu
- Lines: 30
- Approved: news@netnews.cc.lehigh.edu
-
- Hi everybody,
-
- I think I've found a bug in f-prot 206a.
- A week ago I had two guys with their pc's in our office who had
- cought the SVC virus in version 6.0.
- SCAN V99 reported [SVC] and(!) [SVC 5.0] in the boot sector and on
- various .com & .exe files, an information I decided not
- to trust, because of the multiple report of infection.
- F-PROT found (correctly) SVC 6.0 (4644 bytes), but only on the .com & .exe
- files.
- After removing the virus (which f-prot claims to do correctly)
- all infected files were absolutely identical with the originals, that were
- present on security-disks, but knowing that SVC 6.0 does infect the boot-
- sector i ran scan again; with the result, that it reports [SVC] and [SVC5.0]
- still present in the boot sector.
- I removed the virus with CLEAN (V97) [SVC50] and everything was fine.
-
- Now the Questions: Is the above a known bug with F-PROT? If yes, will Frisk
- fix it in the next release, and when will McAfee get rid
- of their double reports and get the right names, so one
- can assume to clean the right virus with CLEAN?
-
- By the way: the virus information of F-PROT says that SVC 6.0 is only a
- .exe & .com infector, which is simply not true!
- - --
- *****************************************************************************
- "Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day" from WITHNAIL & I
- Thomas Kratz
- Beratungsstelle ZDV-Uni-Mainz INTERNET: kratz@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
- *****************************************************************************
-