On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:21:10 +0000 (UTC), "flossie"
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