mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu (07/22/89)
This is not a topic of current discussion, but I am curious to see what people on this notesfile have to say about it. I am not a computer virus expert or a biology expert, so please no flames... I was having a discussion with a friend about computer viruses, and he was saying that he thought that they weren't really like biological viruses. Several other people have expressed this view, that the term "virus" is misleading. Seems to me that it captures quite a few of the critical qualities of computer viruses, and the analogy holds up quite well, for several reasons: * First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses represent the minimal means of doing so. Likewise, computer viruses are programs whose primary task is to replicate them- selves by attaching to other programs, just as bio-viruses attach to cells. Some computer viruses have code that helps to camouflage them, or keeps them dormant until a specified time. Likewise, some bio-viruses have DNA that codes for traits that hides them or keeps them dormant until conditions are right... * Second, in most cases bioviruses harm their hosts, and often lead to their deaths, but they allow them to live long enough to infect other hosts. The same is true of computer viruses, which may or may not be intended to bring down the machine; or may do so as a "byproduct" of their replication, just as a host may die as a "byproduct" of over-replication of a biovirus. * Third, there are "vaccines" for computer viruses, just as there are vaccines for bio-viruses. When the vaccine is administered, the virus is no longer a threat. In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know why people want to criticize it. I welcome your replies and comments. --Randy McKinney Urbana, IL mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu
purves@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Purves) (07/24/89)
In article <20800007@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I was having a discussion with a friend about computer viruses, >and he was saying that he thought that they weren't really like >biological viruses. Several other people have expressed this view, >that the term "virus" is misleading. Seems to me that it captures >quite a few of the critical qualities of computer viruses, and the >analogy holds up quite well, for several reasons: > >* First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has > of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely > vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses > represent the minimal means of doing so. Sorry, but this isn't true. Viruses come closer to representing the MAXIMAL means. A virus is not self-reproducing. It must subvert the molecular machinery of a living organism in order to be replicated. A bacteriophage needs a living bacterium for its replication; a virus of humans requires a human being for its replication. (A single cell will suffice, but that is available in the lab, not in nature.) In this sense, bacteria represent "more minimal" means, since they reproduce without any help at all (and don't need partners -- a human also requires another human being for its reproduction ;-) >In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know >why people want to criticize it. I welcome your replies and comments. It's all a matter of taste, of course. The term "computer virus" is well established by now, and that's fine with me. However, I don't view the computer virus as being specifically biological-virus-like. The term "computer pathogen," while less euphonious, seems closer to the mark. The computer virus is no more like a virus than it is like, say, a pathogenic bacterium or protozoan. De gustibus . . . (bill)
gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) (07/24/89)
I think you did a good job of summing up the similarities between bio and comp viruses. It would be interesting to read a similar work on the differences.
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/29/89)
>In article <20800007@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> (regarding computer viruses and there similarity to biological ones) >>* First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has >> of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely >> vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses >> represent the minimal means of doing so. > In article <1666@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> purves@jarthur.UUCP (Bill Purves) writes: >Sorry, but this isn't true. Viruses come closer to representing the >MAXIMAL means. A virus is not self-reproducing. It must subvert the >molecular machinery of a living organism in order to be replicated. > >(bill) I am not sure if you meant to imply this or not, but, while viruses require the cell for metabolites, many if not most have their own replication machinary. They vary all over the board--Vaccinia is so big and stupid that it does not even need to get into the nucleus of the cell, Papillomaviruses are only about 8KB and some RNA viruses are even more simple. But, I actually wanted to point out something else. "Organisms" need not be self-sustaining, if you allow that a parasite can co-opt host machinary to survive and still be an "organism." In fact, it all seems a matter of degree as to what you call "self-sustaining," anyway. Perhaps only green plants can make that claim. So, viruses, as cellular parasites, can be considered and organism. If that is acceptable, then why draw the line there? The simplest way of replicating (using host proteins) is practiced by transposons. These could be considered molecular parasites. My personal favorites of these are the transposable introns; beasts that can insert themselves in the DNA but are harmless to the cell since they are spliced out of the message. In yeast mitochondria, there is an intron that encodes a single protein that acts as a transposase AND is used to assist in splicing out the intron. And, the phage T4 introns are self-splicing and (in at least two cases) transposable. So they are parasites of parasites. So, as I asked above, why draw the line at viruses? Why not include viroids and virusoids and transposons and even non-transposable introns--since they probably started as transposable ones. Anyway, so where do others think the line should be on parasites? -tony
david.dmytryshyn@f428.n250.z1.fidonet.org (david dmytryshyn) (07/31/89)
> encodes a single protein that acts as a transposase AND is used > to assist in splicing out the intron. And, the phage T4 introns are > self-splicing and (in at least two cases) transposable. So they are > parasites of parasites. So, as I asked above, why draw the line at > viruses? Why not include viroids and virusoids and transposons and even > non-transposable introns--since they probably started as transposable > ones. > Anyway, so where do others think the line should be on parasites? So, if we make the world the host, humans are parasites. It would seem that this is a good analogy. We can't live or reproduce without our "host", and we certainly are living off of it, no, wait, that would make us a virus. The problem here is we're not doing this very symbiotically, parasite doesn't necessarily imply pathogenic. So, I'm a parasitic virus. (funny, I don't feel or look like one) Or was that a pathogenic parasite, or a pathogenic parasitic virus? (I'll do what I do on multiple choice tests, [E] All of the above) I think that's as far as you can take parasitism! (smug human thinking he is the ultimate form of life in the galaxy) But then again, we have evolved somewhat, and we might be able to start some sort of a symbiotic relationship with earth here, our track record doesn't seem too encouraging though... > The simplest way of replicating (using host proteins) is practiced by > transposons. These could be considered molecular parasites. Strange that you mention transposons, I was just reading about them today... The book refers to them as the "Jumping Genes". (wonder if they make Mexican ones) I think my computers are parasites, they eat up alot of my time, but wait, the computer is not deriving any benefit, perhaps it is myself who is the parasite. Wait a second, I just called myself a parasite, a self-inflicted wound, I'm being parasitic on myself, yeah, that's it, like mental illness, it's self-parsitic, you eat away at yourself until you're just a fraction of what you once were, but wait, do you derive any benefit from eating away at your sanity, sure, it perpetuates the insanity! So it, mental illness feeds upon itself, or does it? Does insanity perpetuate insanity Your turn, go perpetuate the insanity... David. What was the original question??? Wandering through life as if it was a game of waterpolo and my horse just drowned... (I'm also doing a B.SC at the University of Toronto, but that seems so un-important right now.. :) ) --- FD 2.00 * Origin: Synaptic Communications (1:250/428)
hiebeler@cardinal.lanl.gov (David Hiebeler) (08/02/89)
In article <89080107315265@masnet.uucp> david.dmytryshyn@f428.n250.z1.fidonet.org (david dmytryshyn) writes: > I think my computers are parasites, they eat up alot of my time, > but wait, the computer is not deriving any benefit, perhaps it is > myself who is the parasite. I have just recently started looking at Geoff Simon's book, _The Biology of Computer Life_. (He also wrote a similar book, called _Are Computers Alive_, which I haven't looked at yet, but my wife is reading it). In my opinion, he exaggerates an awful lot, and is very much and extremist, but he does have some interesting points about viewing computers as an emerging form of life. (Basically I agree that computers are an emerging form of life, but I don't think they're as far along as Simons does). I'd recommend taking a look at his books, but take them with a very huge grain of salt. He does have some good ideas, he just throws too much fluff and exaggeration on top. (My opinions only, of course. (Well, my wife's too.)) -- Dave Hiebeler hiebeler@cardinal.lanl.gov Center for Nonlinear Studies hiebeler@cs.rpi.edu MS B258 "xue zai shao" ("snow is burning") Los Alamos National Laboratory / Los Alamos, NM 87545
jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) (08/03/89)
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: > > mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > (regarding computer viruses and there similarity to biological ones) > >>* First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has > >> of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely > >> vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses > >> represent the minimal means of doing so. > > The simplest way of replicating (using host proteins) is practiced by > transposons. These could be considered molecular parasites. > My personal favorites of these are the transposable introns; beasts that can > insert themselves in the DNA but are harmless to the cell since they are > spliced out of the message. I seem to recall that some *proteins* could replicate. I think this came up back when Legionaire's disease was the "in" thing. "Kuru" and "scrapie" and even "altzheimer's" (sp?) were thought to be caused by these proteins (called prions). I'd guess that the prion would have to be coded already in the victim's DNA, and the prion affects the rate of RNA transcription of that same DNA. I think there are known feedback loops like this but I don't know if the above diseases are caused this way. So what's the current thinking? Are prions for real? -- -- my opinions -- jeff@censor.uucp Keep track of the current path, and use it naturally. Glenn Reid (Postscript Language Program Design)