Re: W32.Netsky.B@mm virus

• Previous message: bdag: "Re: W32.Netsky.B@mm virus"
• In reply to: bdag: "Re: W32.Netsky.B@mm virus"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:31:39 -0400

I think you will get a clean scan. In XP, turning SR off, and then back on,
removes the files, and any possible infected file.

I know you'll keep Norton updated, and watch those attachments!

(And I know how David Lipman feels--I went to parent-teacher meetings with
my high-school age son's teachers, and his deep-voiced English teacher would
start off "Mr Sanderson has ......." She was talking about my son, and the
formality was nice, but I had to think several times about whether she was
referring to my dad (which made ME feel I was back in school again, or me,
or my son!)

Newsgroups are traditionally informal--also traditionally a place where you
may be greeted abrasively--don't worry about it.

"bdag" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1532d01c41ce6$e1ccfce0$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> Hello Mr. Sanderson...I want to thank you for your time
> and consideration regarding my recent episode with this
> virus.
> I noted carefully what you said and although Norton's
> message did say my computer was infected, I believe that
> the timely quarantine and subsequent deletions of the two
> files, "Friends", will be sufficient. Definitions were
> updated again this morning and I am now running another
> full scan. If it again shows a healthy machine, I will be
> very happy. Since I have WindowsXP...I am now only
> concerned that damage may have been done ..(the articles I
> researched stated something to that effect)....within the
> restoration content..I turned it off at one point in
> preparation to chase the worm out ....but turned it back
> on last night and reset a restoration date.
> Thank you...if I should encounter another dreadful
> occurrence it is nice to know you are there.
> Sincerely....Barbara D
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Check out what Norton said carefully.
>>
>>I don't think it said your machine was infected, I think
> it said that the
>>attachment which you clicked on was infected.
>>
>>There's an important difference.
>>
>>You've done quite well--you are running competent
> antivirus, and you've kept
>>the definitions reasonably up-to-date--congratulations!
>>
>>Dave's advice is excellent, as usual, but you might also
> consider simply
>>updating your Norton definitions, and doing a full scan
> of all files on your
>>system with Norton after the update.
>>
>>I think you'll find that Norton has done the job, and
> protected you from the
>>virus, whose human-factors engineering "got you."
>>
>>The file is unrepairable because it consists entirely of
> the virus--if it
>>were repaired, there'd be nothing useful left.
>>
>>Check things out carefully, and trust your antivirus if
> it scans your
>>machine and finds it clean. And be more careful next
> time about
>>attachments--and tell your friends.
>>
>>"bdag" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
>>news:18f5c01c41b9e$fd2f6160$a101280a@phx.gbl...
>>> Has anyone been affected by this...I was informed today
>>> that my computer throughan attachment is infected...the
> e
>>> mail was from a sub server stating that due to too many
>>> hops anundeliverable message had been returned
>>> The were 2 attachments and I thought I would learn who
> had
>>> sent the so called undeliverable e mail...then norton
> came
>>> on immediately and said my ppc was infexted...and the
> file
>>> is unrepairable
>>> HELP
>>
>>
>>.
>>

• Previous message: bdag: "Re: W32.Netsky.B@mm virus"
• In reply to: bdag: "Re: W32.Netsky.B@mm virus"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]