4 ms·
Assuming fairly dense formats (no .wavs or .bmp images), large files necessarily mean more than small files, so they draw more attention to themselves. "Why is
by gue5t 14y ago
Assuming fairly dense formats (no .wavs or .bmp images), large files necessarily mean more than small files, so they draw more attention to themselves. "Why is /foo/bar using 300MB of disk?" is a much more likely avenue of inquiry than "Why is /foo/bar using 50KB of disk?".
- moe 14y agoExcept the last time when 20MB was "large" was in the early 1990s. Today, even if someone goes to clean out their harddrive, a 20MB file is unlikely to even appear on the radar.
- cstejerean 14y agoUnless you're dealing with most corporate mail systems.
- duaneb 14y agoI don't quite understand what you mean - the 20MB file would stand out on a mail server? I find that unlikely, unless they're running OpenBSD. Is the 20MB file attached to mail messages? That also seems unlikely, if only because that's a really stupid way to design a virus.
- Travis 14y agoThe reason it's a stupid way to design a virus currently is because that was one of the primary attack vectors in the past. Yes, most decent mail systems will protect against this. But some might not -- might as well use what's worked in the past as well as other options. Also, what if the mail component were used to hide/archive the virus? Hide a virus attachment from someone to themself, then have some bootstrap code (Outlook/email client exploit, perhaps) that loads the email archived virus back onto the comp.