whitney@think.COM (David Whitney) (08/27/88)
This is to the person in Brooklyn who sent me some US Mail a little while back.
I suggest you take a look at the August 1st issue of BusinessWeek, page 68,
starting at the last paragraph of the second column. It seems you may have been
wrong in your claim...
In case everyone else hasn't yet fathomed it, the author of the Festering Hate
virus is here on our happy net. Double-check *anything* you take off of Apple2L
or comp.binaries.apple2.
David Whitney, MIT '90 DISCLAIMER: Nobody knows what I'm up
{out there}!harvard!think!whitney to. Don't blame them for my actions
whitney@think.com nor me for theirs.
^^^^^ will be changing before 1989 is here. Don't depend on it after 1/1/89.cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (08/28/88)
> David Whitney, MIT '90 > In case everyone else hasn't yet fathomed it, the author of the Festering > Hate virus is here on our happy net. Double-check *anything* you take off of > Apple2L or comp.binaries.apple2. Double-checking everything is just common sense, but I think that if you're so sure that he's on the net you might do us the favor of sharing with us what makes you think so. I sure haven't seen anything on our "happy net" that points to it, but then maybe I'm just not Mr. "Fathom It" today. If you'd be kind enough to pass along his suspected net address, I have some fan mail for him that I'm sure he'd be tickled to see. When does the new run of FH'88 t-shirts come out, dude? -- Lazlo Nibble /\/oo\/\ | Call Lair Of The Beast BBS: +1 505 268 4804 cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu | "Where Wankies are Welcome"(TM)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (08/28/88)
>I suggest you take a look at the August 1st issue of BusinessWeek, page 68, >starting at the last paragraph of the second column. It seems you may have been >wrong in your claim... Alas, I can't read all the paper that comes in my door as it is. I let my subscription to Business Week expire. What (at least) is the subject on page 68 of the 1/8 issue? >In case everyone else hasn't yet fathomed it, the author of the Festering Hate >virus is here on our happy net. Double-check *anything* you take off of Apple2L You seem pretty sure *sigh*. At least EVERYTHING sent to APPLE2-L arrives with mail headers AND even after LISTSERV is through with it, the return address of the original sender remains with the file(s). Hence, Chris and I would be (just a tad) suspicious of any new Z-Links that don't come from you. Even some unknown program retains some traceable headers, although it IS possible to play around with the "From:", "Sender:", and "Reply-to:" data and disguise the actual account (possibly even the originating node IF enough gateways are used). The people who really need to be checking are Chris and Paul who maintain the archives at BrownVM and husc6. Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ** I've been on vacation for two weeks; still catching up with the mail **
whitney@think.COM (David Whitney) (08/31/88)
In article <8808280027.aa01706@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >>I suggest you take a look at the August 1st issue of BusinessWeek, page 68, >>starting at the last paragraph of the second column. It seems you may have been >>wrong in your claim... > >Alas, I can't read all the paper that comes in my door as it is. I let >my subscription to Business Week expire. What (at least) is the subject >on page 68 of the 1/8 issue? Well, in brief it says that Congress is pushing a bill to make virus writing illegal - a federal offense no less. I hope it passes. Dave David Whitney, MIT '90 DISCLAIMER: Nobody knows what I'm up {out there}!harvard!think!whitney to. Don't blame them for my actions whitney@think.com nor me for theirs. ^^^^^ will be changing before 1989 is here. Don't depend on it after 1/1/89.
whitney@think.COM (David Whitney) (08/31/88)
In article <3573@charon.unm.edu> cscbrkac@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes: >> David Whitney, MIT '90 > >> In case everyone else hasn't yet fathomed it, the author of the Festering >> Hate virus is here on our happy net. Double-check *anything* you take off of >> Apple2L or comp.binaries.apple2. > >Double-checking everything is just common sense, but I think that if you're so >sure that he's on the net you might do us the favor of sharing with us what >makes you think so. I sure haven't seen anything on our "happy net" that >points to it, but then maybe I'm just not Mr. "Fathom It" today. Well, he's too smart to brag about it. He sent me some US mail about a month ago. No return address. In it was the following: (quote) >> One other point, we are monitoring all your blathering on USENET, and the other networks. We are not two-bit pirates out for a few laughs, we are a large organized group of serious and dedicated programmers. Like you, we have access to many resources and channels of communication as well as facilities and equipment. Recently you stated the following: >Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 18:16:21 EDT >From: pnet01!crash!think.com!whitney (David Whitney) >Subject: Z-Link and virus checking > >OK, for starters, I'm pretty upset by this whole virus deal, and I'm >in the process of doing something about it. The guy who wrote CyberAIDS >is going to get caught and prosecuted. I won't stop until I'm satisfied. << Well, what do you think? Is he or is he not directly or indirectly on this net? David Whitney, MIT '90 DISCLAIMER: Nobody knows what I'm up {out there}!harvard!think!whitney to. Don't blame them for my actions whitney@think.com nor me for theirs. ^^^^^ will be changing before 1989 is here. Don't depend on it after 1/1/89.
cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (08/31/88)
>> Me > David Whitney, MIT '90 >> [What makes you think the author of Festering Hate is on the net?] < > Well, he's too smart to brag about it. He sent me some US mail about a < month ago. No return address. > < [quotes the mail] > < Well, what do you think? Is he or is he not directly or indirectly on this > net? Yeah, I found out about the letter they sent you from an aquaintance of mine a couple hours after I posted that message. As the guy told me, it's sort of naive to assume that the FH crew aren't represented SOMEWHERE on the net, after all, telecom is their business. You're welcome to your virus law, by the way -- have fun trying to enforce it. Probably will be about as successful as all those laws against software piracy. -- Lazlo Nibble /\/oo\/\ | Call Lair Of The Beast BBS: +1 505 268 4804 cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu | Voted "Best BBS In New Mexico" by dozens!
gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (08/31/88)
In article <27103@think.UUCP> whitney@godot.think.com.UUCP (David Whitney) writes: >>From: pnet01!crash!think.com!whitney (David Whitney) >Well, what do you think? Is he or is he not directly or indirectly on this net? Evidence is, he or his minions get Usenet news at a site that connects to pnet01. I liked the bit about "serious, dedicated programmers". What a joke.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (09/01/88)
>>Alas, I can't read all the paper that comes in my door as it is. I let >>my subscription to Business Week expire. What (at least) is the subject >>on page 68 of the 1/8 issue? > >Well, in brief it says that Congress is pushing a bill to make virus >writing illegal - a federal offense no less. I hope it passes. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the "Computer Crimes" act passed in Connecticut 3 or 4 years ago, virus writing already is a felony in this state. Presumably if a resident or business in Connecticut were damaged by Festering Hate or any other virus and could identify the author (even residing in another state) a criminal complaint could be filed and extradition proceedings, if necessary, instituted. Although there it's pretty easy to subscribe to USENET or have an account on a system that carries USENET, it doesn't necessaily follow that the dolt(s) who wrote Festering Hate are among us. Selected mail often is downloaded and distributed to local BBS's (I've often done that myself) especially mail related to viruses. Hence, you could have been quoted from a "reprint." It's also possible to sign-on to systems that allow reading of USENET but don't always provide access to write to it (the Big Electric Cat in New York, for example in as much as your letter was postmarked in Brooklyn). The 'we are a well organized band with lots of resources' (I paraphrase) language you quoted suggests a highly insecure personality without much self-esteem who is in serious need of professional help (none of us are likely to be surprised about that). If it really were true, the writer would have better things to do than code dysfunctional temper tantrums in binary. Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
mcgurrin@MITRE.ARPA (09/02/88)
Dave, if the bill you mention would make virus *WRITING* illegal I'm afraid I can't agree with you that I hope it passes. While I don't see much in the way of a legitimate purpose, except for research, it should not be illegal in a free society to write any type of code. Distributing it to unknowing recipients is a whole other story, and I would have no problem with making that illegal (but let's word it carefully, so that a responsible BBS operator who unknowingly has a virus program posted by a third party is not held responsible for damages that occur, if he could not reasonable be expected to know that the program was a virus at the time it was posted). Remember, a lot of lawmakers probably don't know what a modem is, let alone a BBS!
bfox%vision@HUB.UCSB.EDU (Brian Fox) (09/03/88)
Posted-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 88 10:57:15 EDT Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C. Date: Fri, 02 Sep 88 10:57:15 EDT From: mcgurrin@mitre.arpa Dave, if the bill you mention would make virus *WRITING* illegal I'm afraid I can't agree with you that I hope it passes. While I don't see much in the way of a legitimate purpose, except for research, it should not be illegal in a free society to write any type of code. Distributing it to unknowing recipients is a whole other story, and I would have no problem with making that illegal (but let's word it carefully, so that a responsible BBS operator who unknowingly has a virus program posted by a third party is not held responsible for damages that occur, if he could not reasonable be expected to know that the program was a virus at the time it was posted). Remember, a lot of lawmakers probably don't know what a modem is, let alone a BBS! I also disagree with making the writing of any type of code illegal. This is akin to censorship, which I know the majority of us do not agree with. And besides, there is nothing wrong with "virus" code, it is the heinous actions performed by a few of the (improperly named) "viruses" that we despise so much. Note that there are also good purposes for self-propagating code, such as amusement value (max headroom virus), and system-maintenence (new-software-release-updater). I dislike calling someones file-deleter a "virus" program because it gives that non-person undeserved respect. Any moron can delete files; we certainly don't need some idiot to write a program to do it for us. Brian Fox Claimer: The opinions expressed are those of everyone else, since I have no opinions whatsoever.
gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (09/04/88)
As usual the politicians focus on narrow specific issues rather than upholding general principles. The reasons for this are historical and I don't want to get into that now, but I will say that attacking symptoms is no way to really solve a problem. No matter how an anti-virus bill is worded, so long as it tries to specify details, the thug will always be able to work around it. What should be (and I used to naively think was) protected by the law in this case is persons' property. Viruses are bad not because they are a nuisance (many things are that) nor because they can unexpectedly remove files (many UNIX users have done that to their own files while using standard system utilities), but rather because they implement malicious destruction of the property of others. ANY action along those lines should be considered a crime. Until we have widespread support for such a general principle, all we'll get from the legal system is more ineffective and burdensome restrictions. I saw on a remote BBS the other night several messages about a certain person (his name and home phone number were given) who was breaking into BBSes in the area and erasing all the files he could get his hands on. One might wonder why nobody seemed to think of calling the authorities, although I bet you can guess what the answer would be..
TMURPHY@wpi.BITNET (09/06/88)
The major problem with an anti-virus writing law seems to be to be enforcementt.
As far as such a law being 'wrong' in a free society, don't forget that there ar
e la~p
are laws against other anti-social habits, such as explosive manufacture I
believe. How does that differ from virus writing (other than no boom)?
________________________________________________________________
Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Mechanical Engineering Dept.
BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI
Arpanet: tmurphy%wpi.bitnet@talcott.harvard.edu