brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/16/90)
While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting itself into another program, why the term "worm?" A worm implies something that crawls around with on head, and possibly a tail -- to me this would be a program that moved around from system to system, never staying in one place. Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium." It would infect a system, and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself. Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them. So why "worm?" -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (01/17/90)
In referenced article, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium." It would infect a system, >and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself. >Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them. > >So why "worm?" "Germ" certainly is a candidate too, but a parasitic worm seems to me to be a much more insidious thing than a mere germ. The capability of much more "intelligent" actions by worms, like seeking out specific hosts and sites under its own motivation, would seem to make "worm" the more appropriate term. [but there again I'm sure someone is going to e.g. show that WORM is in fact an acronym, or tell us that its named after Fred Worm.....] -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (01/17/90)
In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting >itself into another program, why the term "worm?" >Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium." It would infect a system, >and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself. >Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them. A "germ" or "bacterium" generally infects cells, or other such stuff. It is not very offensive (tactical sense): it does not move about, and will only infect other "systems" through chance. The person who released the worm actively sought out other systems, therefore it doesn't count as a passive organism. Make sense? How about this, also: it was considerably more complex than a computer bacterium would need to be. In reality, a bacterium is easily destroyed, since they don't have much resistance, and can't breed fast enough. Worms and viruses are more complex and tougher. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "If a compiler emits correct code purely by divine guidance seanf@sco.COM | and has no memory at all, it can still be a C compiler." (408) 458-1422 | -- Chris Torek (chris@cs.umd.edu) -----------------+ Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
res@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) (01/17/90)
In article <77443@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting > itself into another program, why the term "worm?" The original "worm" programs used the segmented worm as the biological analogy. These programs were designed to maintain copies of themselves running on N machines at a time in a network. If one of the programs (segments) was killed off, the others would learn of it and cause another segment to be formed and start executing on another machine on the network. The mental image you want to have to understant the terminology is of a segmented worm crawling through a network (one segment per machine) by creating new segments ahead of it while old segments die behind it. Rich Strebendt ...!att!ihlpb!res
frankw@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Frank Wales) (01/17/90)
In some article, Brad Templeton (brad@looking.on.ca) writes: >While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting >itself into another program, why the term "worm?" > >Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium." So why "worm?" Because when you steal terminology from another field, you run the risk of choosing an inappropriate metaphor or analogy. How many people know the differences between bacteria, viruses and worms, for example? And does the metaphor hold sufficiently that the differences matter in the "new" context? And how many people care about the accurate use of the terminology they *do* understand? What about kilobytes versus Kbytes? Centigrade degrees vs degrees Centigrade vs Kelvins? ROM memory and LCD displays and software programs? But this is the start of another argument. -- Frank Wales, Guest of HP Corvallis, [frank@zen.co.uk || frankw@hpcvra.hp.com] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., LEEDS, England, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/18/90)
In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"...
Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."...
Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has
been proven in court. Don't make any assumptions or cooperate in any
aspersion-casting before the facts of the case are established.jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (01/18/90)
_W_eapon _O_f _R_obert _M_orris? - - - - How about because _Shockwave Rider_ used worms, not germs? Nothing quite as good as a bit of leading press. You think the newsfolks knew what they were talking about?!?!? Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (01/18/90)
The term "worm" probably stems from a John Brunner story called Shockwave Rider, published in 1975 (long before such programs were common) that described such programs as "tapeworms" because they were parasitic, infectious, loathsome, and wriggled through the wires from host to host. The details of the tapeworm program in Shockwave Rider are consistent with the behavior of the Morris worm.
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/18/90)
In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
=While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting
=itself into another program, why the term "worm?"
=
=A worm implies something that crawls around with one head, and possibly
=a tail -- to me this would be a program that moved around from system to
=system, never staying in one place.
=
=Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium." It would infect a system,
=and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself.
=Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them.
=
=So why "worm?"
=--
=Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp.-- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
I don't know why the term was used, but it supplies a very appropriate
visual metaphor.
Morris' (putative) program functioned by pushing a small part of itself
forward, forcing it into a target system through treachery having to do
with overflowing a field unprotected by a length check to overwrite part of
the stack, which changed the systems normal execution to execute some of
the attacking code, then, when the "head" of the beast was successfully in,
it "sent back" for the rest of the code, which was forwarded and loaded to
complete a successful invasion.
Compare that to the nightcrawler forcing itself through a hole smaller than
its body's rest cross section: it uses its body to push hard; first the
head emerges, then the rest of the body follows though the passage already
broached, at last the worm is on this side of the barrier; and you may be
happier with the choice of terms.
--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan)
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian
kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile.
-> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) (01/18/90)
In article <BOB.90Jan17124428@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: ->In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: -> While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"... -> Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... -> ->Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has ->been proven in court. Don't make any assumptions or cooperate in any ->aspersion-casting before the facts of the case are established. Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris loosed a computer worm. I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, then it is probably safe for us to do so to. -- Doug O'Neal Distributed Systems Programmer Homewood Academic Computing doug@jhuvms.bitnet, doug@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins University mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!doug
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/19/90)
I guess I should have made it clear that I have read almost all of Brunner's books, including Shockwave Rider, and knew about the "tapeworm" concept used in that book. I just don't think that's the best biological analog for Morris' alleged program. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/19/90)
In article <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) writes: In article <BOB.90Jan17124428@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"... Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has been proven in court... Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris loosed a computer worm. I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, then it is probably safe for us to do so to. Fair enough. I hadn't heard that Morris' association with the worm was undisputed. I'll take off my Civil Libertarian hat now :-)