dhawk@well.UUCP (David Hawkins) (11/18/88)
The following column by Jon Carroll was published in the SF Chronicle
on Wednesday, 11/9/1988. It is included here with Jon's permission.
He would be interested in any feedback from the net. His email
address is {pacbell,ucbvax,hplabs,apple}!well!jrc
(It was posted before, but a cancellation went out before there was
much discussion. I do not have 'hard copy' in front of me to check
spelling, etc. with.)
----------------
"Random Thoughts About the Worm"
As faithful followers of the media and the hypermedia are already aware,
a computer "worm" infected numerous extremely large computer systems
around the country last week. The worm's name was ":sed
'1,l$/d':/bin/sh," or "sh" to its friends. It did no real damage, but
it did eat up an enormous amount of column inches and TV air time.
In conversations with people who know more about computers and worms
that I do (approximately half the known world), the following facts
and/or plausible opinions have emerged.
1. The difference between a worm and a virus is similar to the
difference between a common cold and brain cancer. A worm does not eat
up or change existing cells; it just fills up empty information cavities
with disgusting gunk.
2. Interestingly, there is no direct cybernetic evidence that Robert
Morse Jr. is the worm-master. Computer technology being what it is, the
"telltale files" could have been planted by anyone, including Barry
Manilow. I make no accusations here; I merely note the possibility.
3. What allowed the worm to enter the systsems was a programming
structure called a "trapdoor," which is a device built into a computer
system that allows the very smartest people to move more quickly through
the system than the ordinary user. Such holes exists in virtually every
system, including the ones that allow you to withdraw $100 on Saturday
and the ones that launch large pizzas at Leningrad.
4. WHATEVER ITS CAUSES, the Worm Event was essentially a benign
occurance. Given the sophistication of the worm program, it is easily
possible that the worm master could have introduced a curious anomaly
into, say FedWire, which is responsible for transferring $500 billion
(think: half-a-trill) around the planet each and every day.
5. It is an interesting question, not yet decided, whether members of
the affected networks (like the University of California) could sue UNIX
(from whom they bought the program with the trapdoor that let the worm
begin to burrow) for lost revenues. Although there is no case law on
the matter, there is also no reason why not.
6. It is necessary to make a distinction beween "hackers" (who are
simply people who understand computers very well and are unwilling to
accept authoritarian definitions of what they should do with their
knowledge) and "crackers," who invade extant computer system with malign
intent. It seems probable that the worm-master was a hacker. To blame
him (or, possibly her) for the trapdoor is like blaming Cassandra for
the fall of Troy.
7. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to understand is that computer programming
is an extremeley intense art form. It is also a scientific discipline,
but its addictive fascination lies in its creative component. Creating
a truly innovative program is (for the artist) exactly like painting the
roof of the Sistine Chapel.
Therefore, the hole that the worm went through may bee seen (in
aesthetic terms) as a big blank piece between the figure of Adam and the
figure of God on said ceiling. The hacker/artist saw the hole and said,
"I'll bet the original artist meant for the two hands to be touching
there. How stupid of him to have forgotten to put that in."
So the angry artist, upset at the unlovely disunity, decides to draw a
big frog between God and Adam. "This," he says to himself, "will
probably call attention to the problem."
- Jon Carroll
NOTE: I'm not Jon Carroll and am posting it for him because he doesn't
read the net. I will pass along any posted articles to him, however.
Thank you for your feedback.
--
David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
Bach almost persuades me to be a Christian. -- Roger Fryrsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (11/19/88)
The following column by Jon Carroll was published in the SF Chronicle
on Wednesday, 11/9/1988. It is included here with Jon's permission.
He would be interested in any feedback from the net. His email
address is {pacbell,ucbvax,hplabs,apple}!well!jrc
(It was posted before, but a cancellation went out before there was
much discussion. I do not have 'hard copy' in front of me to check
spelling, etc. with.)
Unfortunately, Jon's permission isn't good enough; you need the permission
of the SF Chronicle. The Chronicle paid Jon to write the article, and
they own the copyright on it.
The article should, again, be cancelled. Posting it to the net is
still a violation of US copyright law.
/rich $alz
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (11/19/88)
There's a good possibility that the author knows more about the copyrights he still has on the article than you do. Potentially, he sold North American, First Periodical rights. I would think that the author knew what he was doing in giving posting permission.
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/19/88)
In article <1221@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
:
: The following column by Jon Carroll was published in the SF Chronicle
: on Wednesday, 11/9/1988. It is included here with Jon's permission.
: He would be interested in any feedback from the net. His email
: address is {pacbell,ucbvax,hplabs,apple}!well!jrc
: (It was posted before, but a cancellation went out before there was
: much discussion. I do not have 'hard copy' in front of me to check
: spelling, etc. with.)
:
: Unfortunately, Jon's permission isn't good enough; you need the permission
: of the SF Chronicle. The Chronicle paid Jon to write the article, and
: they own the copyright on it.
Sorry, but it may or may not be true that the permission of the
publisher is required to reprint it.
See, when you have someone publish a work of yours, you give him
certain rights to your work. The absolute minimum you might grant the
publisher is the right to print your work *once*, you retaining all
rights thereafter. You might also transfer all rights to the
publisher, leaving yourself with no rights to the work. These are
two extremes; the usual contract (for magazines, I don't know about
newspapers) gives the publisher the right to publish the work once
and in certain derivative works, like "best of..." books; however,
the author retains the write to publish the work, once the magazine
has printed it.
Since these rights may range from one printing only to complete
transfer of ownership, unless you happen to know the details of the
contract, you can't say anything at all about whether the publisher's
approval is required.
: The article should, again, be cancelled. Posting it to the net is
: still a violation of US copyright law.
: /rich $alz
If the contract between the publisher and the author was of the usual
type, then he did have the right to give permission for it to be
reprinted. We are not in any position to judge, so let's not go
having cancellation wars, please?
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill