First 64-bit AMD64 Windows virus emerges

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showA [...] d=30900082

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:3B8Xc.24583$UTP.3736@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showA [...] d=30900082
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
>
>

<quote>
The wire quotes Symantec as saying the proof of concept virus exists just to
show that iAMD64 machines are as vulnerable as any other computer platform.
</quote>

Well duh, DEP isn't the virus cure all. It just helps protect you against
certain kinds of buffer attacks...

Carlo

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:33:55 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:42:07 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showA [...] d=30900082
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085
>
>Just another reason I don't use Windows.;-)

like we care! ;p

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Jamco" <Homer@jamcojams.com> top posted:

>does that make you feel special?
>thanks for sharing, idiot

Said the stupid top poster.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:21:10 +0000 (UTC), "flossie"
<flossie@flossie.com> wrote:
>
>Well that post that Wes Newell has done what you can`t do or understand. It
>has informed people that even the AMD64 Cpu`s are not infallible when it
>comes to virus`s and trojans.
>
>I found the links very informative as i am sure other people have done also.
>He has helped people to accertain what the information is about Virii and
>the AMD64 platform.

I don't think that anyone who know what was going on here ever doubted
that the AMD64 platform was still very much vulnerable to viruses.
However AMD's marketing department definitely needs this sort of
smacking upside the head for the sheer audacity of them calling their
no-execute bit "Virus protection" in the first place. That was a flat
out lie and it's good that they are being called on it.

That being said, it is a much needed feature that should have been
implemented ages ago (and implemented properly like AMD has done, not
the odd-ball segment protection scheme that Intel designed and
absolutely nobody used). It will help protect systems from certain
buffer overruns and remote exploits which, IMO, are a MUCH more
serious cause for concern than viruses. Viruses are *EXTREMELY* easy
to avoid if you know anything about how they work, but remotely
exploitable flaws in code are WAY more difficult to avoid (basically
impossible to avoid when the exploit is previously unknown and in some
server code that you need to be accessible from the internet).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:05:12 +0000, Hellmark wrote:

> Never anonymous Bud's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
> through his body were:
>> Viruses target OPERATING SYSTEMS and programs, not CPUs.
>
> No, but this was tailored to run only on AMD64's

And what other CPU's currently run the AMD 64bit codes? :-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm