| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Disputes Donut Virus's Effect on .NET | |
|
||
| Time: 11:10 EST/16:10 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks Christian. "Antivirus researchers revealed on Wednesday that they have in their possession a virus apparently aimed at Microsoft's .NET platform, the high-profile software-as-a-service initiative on which the Redmond, Wash., company is betting its collective future. Microsoft responded on Thursday by saying that the virus's aim is off. The virus, sent by an author named "Benny" in an e-mail to several antivirus companies on January 9, was originally named "dotNet," but has since been labeled by antivirus experts as W32.Donut or w32/Donut. " | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.32.227) at 1/12/2002 12:21:03 AM |
|
Again, please show me a programming langauge/framework for which a virus cannot be writing.
If you can do that, then this (and the original story) are news. Otherwise, it's just ZDNet up to their same sensationalistic crap again. If an employee quit from MS, ZDNet would run a story about how employees are "flocking" from Microsoft (and then make a presumption that they're heading off to Apple or Linux companies). They'll post quotes from these "employees" about how "evil" Bill Gates is, or how MS execs are "terrified" by Linux. If you don't agree with me, or don't believe what I say about Linux, just watch the next 5 ZDNet articles posted here on AW. You'll see. |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/12/2002 3:29:49 AM |
| Well, in theory, .NET is just such a programming language. Self checking assemblies and code access security should prevent all viruses from running in .NET. In fact, that seems to be exactly the case here... this isn't a .NET virus at all. |
| #3 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/13/2002 11:54:33 AM |
| Any program written in any programming language, if executed with the correct security rights on the computer, can be malicious. Just because this one targets the .Net framework does not make it a .Net virus. I could write a program that deletes all .jpg files on a computer, does that mean its a Jpeg virus? I think calling this program a virus is being nice. Its simply a malicious program. |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/13/2002 3:46:34 PM |
|
#4 - "Microsoft doesn't want to confine .NET developers to the sandbox. Fine. But this allows for viruses to spread that utilize parts of the .NET framework."
While Microsoft doesn't want to define a sandbox *for* you, there is nothing to prevent the definition of a sandbox by the user and system administrators. With .NET, MS gives you the option of changing how the default sandbox works, giving the power to the user/admin, not Microsoft. The default settings for the pseudo-sandbox MS includes is quite restricting, and should prevent the spread of virii just as well as the Java sandbox. The point is, once Windows is 100% .NET driven, many of these virus problems will start to disappear thanks to the whole paradigm of code access security. #6 - true, but the point is that the reason the majority of virii spread is because the user doesn't know any better. With code access security, the default setting is to not allow programs downloaded from the Internet to access files or resources outside of the default sandbox, just like in Java. The great part about .NET is that, unlike Java, the programmer can request certain specific permissions which can be granted or denied by the admin/user. The administration of these features is very clear and easy, but not obvious. In this way, it protects "Mom and Pop" from doing something stupid - .NET protects them with the default sandbox. In a business environment, the sys admins can change settings in any way imaginable to allow applications they trust (like from a specific company or author) to run with more permissions than the default sandbox. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
