Could this be a virus? Please help
fnc...@flash.net
computer. I have two games that I am trying to run the patches for.
each time I run the patch it gets to processing the .exe file then it
says "old file not found, however a file of the same name was found. No
update done due to file contents not matching". I have a good friend
that just installed windows 98 last night, then installed the game and
tried to run the patch and got the same problem, this makes me think
it's not a virus. But this error message I am getting is very "virusy"
sounding. Someone please help. Is windows keeping me from overwriting
these exe files, or do I have a virus?
Robert Green
Nah, that's not a virus. Sounds like you're trying to install a patch
that's actually for another version of the game.
fnc...@flash.net
the game. I thought the same thing however when I saw that error
message. but it worked for him.
Andy
--
Please remove NOSPAM to reply via email
fnc/e...@flash.net wrote in message
<36CAD68A...@flash.net>...
Robert Green
>In article <36cae356...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "Robert Green" <rgr...@avana.net> wrote:
>
>>Nah, that's not a virus. Sounds like you're trying to install a patch
>>that's actually for another version of the game.
>
>This post concerns Robert Green who foolishly made several unfounded claims
>against a legitimate program I wrote. AVers constantly suggest we spend our
>time writing non-viral things. This VXer did; And Robert has Lied (LIED!)
>about the legit program ever since. This as some of you will know is The same
>Robert who highly recommends 'Invircible' (See the 1st url in my signature
>for non-biased testing results of said product)
Here's an idea: get Juha Saarinen to review your "antivirus" program.
I'm impressed by your use of the semi-colon, BTW ;-).
See ya,
Bob
Randy Abrams
Robert Green wrote in message <36cbed17...@news.mindspring.com>...
does not claim his program will do what it will not. Raid's documentation
clearly states that it will not handle all viruses, and what it's
limitations are. If Invircible's claims were more reasonable, it probably
would have received a better review because it would have been reviewed
based upon what it *could* do, rather than upon what it *claimed* it could
do.
If it wasn't for the fact that I almost never disinfect anything, I might
even try the program.
Regards,
Randy
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
Randy Abrams
Robert Green wrote in message <36ce0ae4...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Randy Abrams" <elec...@nospam.eskimo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Did you run it? Its either a trojan or disastrously buggy.
>
>Here is a partial directory list of a goat directory after runing
>Raid's TOADAV program. The COM files in the list had been
>infected with SARAH.MTE, a simple, direct action COM appender.
>
>The first time I tried it, it reset the file lengths to zero.
<snip>
Ok, you've got me curious, I'll have to setup a machine and give 'er a
whirl. Buggy and trajan are different though!
>
>> If Invircible's claims were more reasonable, it
probably
>>would have received a better review because it would have been reviewed
>>based upon what it *could* do, rather than upon what it *claimed* it could
>>do.
>
>What did it claim it could do but couldn't?
I'd have to go back through lots of posts and email, but there was a time
where Invircible claimed to detect all viruses, known and unknown. This
simply isn't true. Invircible is certainly not the only company to ever had
made outlandish claims. I haven't check for a couple of months, but In
Defense had some equally preposterous information on their web site.
I don't think most people here would have any problem with Zvi and
Invircible had it not been for a history of unrealistic claims. I don't
doubt that Invircible is useful in some situations, certainly not all, and I
appreciate Zvi's helping people here on ACV, but the preposterous claims are
what has fuel the negative posting seen on this NG.
Best regards,
Robert Green
>
>Robert Green wrote in message <36cbed17...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>Http://SourceofKaos.com/homes/raid (Raid) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <36cae356...@news.mindspring.com>,
>>> "Robert Green" <rgr...@avana.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nah, that's not a virus. Sounds like you're trying to install a patch
>>>>that's actually for another version of the game.
>>>
>>>This post concerns Robert Green who foolishly made several unfounded
>claims
>>>against a legitimate program I wrote. AVers constantly suggest we spend
>our
>>>time writing non-viral things. This VXer did; And Robert has Lied (LIED!)
>>>about the legit program ever since. This as some of you will know is The
>same
>>>Robert who highly recommends 'Invircible' (See the 1st url in my signature
>>>for non-biased testing results of said product)
>>
>>Here's an idea: get Juha Saarinen to review your "antivirus" program.
>>
>>I'm impressed by your use of the semi-colon, BTW ;-).
>>
>He'll probably get a more favorable review for the simple reason that he
>does not claim his program will do what it will not. Raid's documentation
>clearly states that it will not handle all viruses, and what it's
>limitations are.
Did you run it? Its either a trojan or disastrously buggy.
Here is a partial directory list of a goat directory after runing
Raid's TOADAV program. The COM files in the list had been
infected with SARAH.MTE, a simple, direct action COM appender.
The first time I tried it, it reset the file lengths to zero.
FORMAT COM 52,736 11-22-30 1:51p FORMAT.COM
SYS COM 86,649,784 05-17-82 12:00a SYS.COM
FDISK EXE 63,116 08-24-96 11:11a FDISK.EXE
ATTRIB EXE 15,252 08-24-96 11:11a ATTRIB.EXE
EDIT COM 16,669,261 EDIT.COM
EDIT HLP 16,669,261 EDIT.HLP
DOSKEY COM 18,432 DOSKEY.COM
KEYB COM 2,949,353 KEYB.COM
MODE COM 32,512 11-19-92 12:39a MODE.COM
MORE COM 13,568 03-26-89 5:00a MORE.COM
CHOICE COM 8,000 CHOICE.COM
FORMAT TAV 49,543 11-22-30 1:51p FORMAT.TAV
SYS TAV 86,649,784 05-17-82 12:00a SYS.TAV
EDIT TAV 16,669,261 EDIT.TAV
DOSKEY TAV 15,495 DOSKEY.TAV
KEYB TAV 2,949,353 KEYB.TAV
MODE TAV 29,271 11-19-92 12:39a MODE.TAV
MORE TAV 10,471 03-26-89 5:00a MORE.TAV
CHOICE TAV 8,000 CHOICE.TAV
DISKCOPY TAV 21,975 10-01-13 10:34a DISKCOPY.TAV
SARAH COM 6,144 12-15-92 2:15p sarah.com
TOADAV EXE 5,018 12-17-98 6:16p TOADAV.EXE
(the TAV files are TOADAV databases: they are supposed to be 8008
bytes in length.)
> If Invircible's claims were more reasonable, it probably
>would have received a better review because it would have been reviewed
>based upon what it *could* do, rather than upon what it *claimed* it could
>do.
What did it claim it could do but couldn't?
>If it wasn't for the fact that I almost never disinfect anything, I might
>even try the program.
What, TOADAV?
Bob
Robert Green
>Ok, you've got me curious, I'll have to setup a machine and give 'er a
>whirl. Buggy and trajan are different though!
If an "antivirus" written by a virus author sets the lengths of every
file in a directory to zero, what will you decide to call it?
Actually, TOADAV works under certain situations, trashes directories
under others. I left Raid a clue in that directory list I posted. Lets
see if he can figure it out.
>>> If Invircible's claims were more reasonable, it
>probably
>>>would have received a better review because it would have been reviewed
>>>based upon what it *could* do, rather than upon what it *claimed* it could
>>>do.
>>
>>What did it claim it could do but couldn't?
>
>
>I'd have to go back through lots of posts and email, but there was a time
>where Invircible claimed to detect all viruses, known and unknown. This
>simply isn't true.
What have posts and email got to do with it? You are accusing NetZ
Computing of outlandish claims. Where might I find some? On the web
site? In the product documentation?
Bob
Robert Green
>So robert, seems our tests have yielded different results...
>I guess we best get someone else to test it. Because one of us is doctoring
>our results...
I think Randy volunteered.
Robert Green
In Article<36cee...@news.ossinc.net>,
<//SourceofKaos.com/homes/ra...@avana.net.avana.net> write:
> While toadav is by no means a trojan, It's entirely possible
robert found a
> bug in code. However, I'm unable to duplicate the problems he's
apparently
> having. Until I can duplicate them, I can't fix it.
>
> If Robert or anyone else examining the program has found a problem
with it,
> please contact me. The email address is included in the
documentation. After
> all, it's there for you!
Well, I don't have the documentation where I am now, and you don't
include your email addr in your sig. I'll be out of touch till next
weekend, but I'll send you something then.
Bruce P. Burrell
[snip]
> What have posts and email got to do with it? You are accusing NetZ
> Computing of outlandish claims. Where might I find some? On the web
> site? In the product documentation?
Try <3v8075$a...@news.ais.net> or <3v80ok$a...@news.ais.net>
Or just search on
~g alt.comp.virus & (detects ^1 all) & (IV | Invircible)
But that is ancient history, and fairness demands that we recognize that
this was an agent, not Zvi, and that such claims have not been posted publicly
here, so far as I know, recently.
-BPB
Bruce P. Burrell
> In article <36ce0ae4...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "Robert Green" <rgr...@avana.net> wrote:
[major snip]
> So robert, seems our tests have yielded different results...
> I guess we best get someone else to test it. Because one of us is doctoring
> our results...
That's not the only possibility. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and
bet that it's not even likely.
-BPB
Bruce P. Burrell
> In article <T54A2.8314$Ge3.32...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> "Bruce P. Burrell" <b...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> That's not the only possibility. I'm even willing to go out on a limb
>>and bet that it's not even likely.
> One of roberts .tav files has a creation date of 30... Since TOADAV isn't
> assigning creation dates on the .tav files (DOS is)... What would your...
> possibilities theory suggest?
All I'm saying is that there might be some data corruption there, that
wasn't intended. While you and Bob probably have no love lost between you, I
doubt either of you is faking the reports.
It would be silly.
Too easy for outside sources (Randy and nearly evrybody else) to verify.
> I've tested toadav on several oses, with varying sized files. It's still not
> doing anything robert has claimed it does.
No challenge to your statement. But something other than Bob telling a lie
seems more likely to me.
-BPB
Robert Green
True enough. The whole thing looks like a non-issue to me, unless
someone can show that NetZ is making clearly false marketing claims to
potential customers, directly and "officially."
I specifically asked about the website and the documentation because
accusations were made that the "all viruses" claim appreared in both:
the web site as current about May of last year and a paper manual from
1996. Both accusations were false.
Bob