On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Wheeler, Doug (NTC) wrote:
> It seems to me that to rely on limiting image type to jpg/jpeg with a
> size limit (or similar approaches) as a virus protection is extremely
> risky.
>
> Yes, you will avoid some of the viruses that fall within those
> parameters, but what about the other methods that these creeps use?
> (what happens if a virus is 600 lines, with a false extension of
> jpg?)

Files with a .jpg extension do not get executed and thus pose no
viral threat regardless of the actual content.

Regards,

-rex