I think you need to distinguish between two things here.
First, there's the announcement of a new virus that's nothing more than a normal, often useful capability that has existed for years. That is misleading, and deserves to be debunked.
Second, there's the basic security question about macros that can affect more than the program they are running in. They're convenient, but they also create vulnerabilities, and in general should be questioned far more than they usually are.
However, since macro viruses are easily countered through OOo's macro security settings and through the basic user account and permission structures of UNIX-like systems, OpenOffice.org's official response seems reasonable. Even though much nastier macro viruses than Stardust are possible, they aren't worth anything like the concern that Kaspersky Lab suggests.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:They have a point
Posted by: nanday on June 04, 2006 10:18 AMFirst, there's the announcement of a new virus that's nothing more than a normal, often useful capability that has existed for years. That is misleading, and deserves to be debunked.
Second, there's the basic security question about macros that can affect more than the program they are running in. They're convenient, but they also create vulnerabilities, and in general should be questioned far more than they usually are.
However, since macro viruses are easily countered through OOo's macro security settings and through the basic user account and permission structures of UNIX-like systems, OpenOffice.org's official response seems reasonable. Even though much nastier macro viruses than Stardust are possible, they aren't worth anything like the concern that Kaspersky Lab suggests.
- Bruce Byfield
#