[comp.virus] Anti-viral approaches

padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com (Padgett Peterson) (05/22/91)

>From:    microsoft!c-rossgr@uunet.uu.net

>With all due respect, everybody has always been taught that if an
>ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then two ounces of
>prevention must be even better.

                     (Philosophy)

The way I always heard it was "If enough is good, too much is better".
Unfortunately, today we have to live with finite resources - this
places increasing reliance on intelligent thought rather than blind
acceptance.  Old standbys like "sound as the dollar" & "no one ever
got fired for buying IBM" just cannot be accepted anymore. The design
of a sound digital system requires careful planning and intelligent
trades between to provide confidentiality, availability, and
integrity.

Just to make matters worse, disciplines are becoming so specialized as
to be completely "magic" to an outsider, even one who must rely on
them.  Consequently, today most computer security is based on trust:
trust in the machines, trust in the users, and trust in the
salesmen/vendors. It has to be since for the millions of personal
computers existant today, judging from the limited sampling I see, the
number of people actually capable of designing good protection is
probably on the order of a thousand.  (and I may be high).

For basic protection, almost all of the anti-viral software on the
market is adequate, just like few people take more than basic
protection from being stung by a wasp. More is considered
contra-productive & is an accepted risk in working in a garden. When
it happens, it is annoying but remedies are at hand.

Others though have allergic reactions & a sting could be fatal & much
more stringent precautions are taken.

Computer viruses come under the same heading with one major
difference: we have not lived side by side with them for thousands of
years & most people have no idea what the risks are. Consequently,
they have no concept of what is "enough" & for the most part, we are
not doing a good job of educating them.

To me, seven people stand out in this area: Ross Greenberg, Fridrik
Skulasson, John McAfee, John Norstad, Andy Hopkins/Pam Kane, and Bob
Bosen not because they are necessarily wonderful people, meetings can
be explosive, but because they have made available to the public
information and programs specificaly designed to combat viruses as
shareware/freeware, not the best way to squeeze the last dollar out of
the public.

                         Back to Reality

Along these lines, DISKSECURE v.95 BIOS level protection is now out
that checks for disk controllers that write to the MBR (I haven't seen
one but have been told that they exist so in went some code - had to
simulate it with CODEVIEW though).  (.94 was a special private
version) Unless something unusual pops up, this will probably be the
last "beta" version (besides am running out of numbers under the dread
1.00).

Meanwhile, Back at Ross...

>If my code merely did integrity checks, instead of doing integrity
>checks *and* known signature scanning, I'd lose out to somebody who
>offers both.

That is why I would suggest two packages: the integrity check routine
on the bulk of the machines (remember, I am talking the corporate/
government/educational environment), and the signature check (or
combo) for the technicians and machines used for scanning new
software. In large groups, this would be around 1 per 1000 PCs. This
is why many anti-viral programs are now offered on service licenses
(tied to physical copies, not #s of PCs).

The best word processors stopped being single programs some time ago
and installations typically ask just which features you wish to
install with descriptions of the assets/liabilities of each

>That honesty is costing marketshare, I bet.

Possibly temporarily but builds trust in the long run. In any complex
technology (e.g. magic) trust in the practitioner is the most
important element.

>I agree...to a point.  I would think that updating 5000 PC's for a new
>scanner that differs from the previous one in a bunch of new viral
>strings for a bunch of "research only" viruses is a waste of time.

That is why we do not. However our "virus response team" and screening
labs get every update that comes out while the integrity management
programs we use have not needed any updates since the attack of the
Zenith Boot Records.  These flag difficulties promptly and then we
bring out the big guns.

>I can't simply say "Yo! *NOBODY* gets the Whale Virus, so why do you care?"

I've seen two reports this month (may or may not be true) but the
WHALE is an excellent case of a virus that is trivial to detect on a
PC. It is the identification of what the infection is that can be
difficult, not the fact that a machine is infected. The problem with a
one part solution reminds me of the saying "Jack of all trades, master
of none" (of course "knowing more and more about less and less until
you know everything about nothing" comes to mind also). "Moderation in
everything" is my motto, this is why I favor a layered approach so
strongly. The most important first step is to determine that SOMETHING
has happened. WHAT & HOW TO RECOVER come later.

My body usually warns me when a cold is coming on. Zink and massive
vitamin C can work wonders so long as I pay attention & react
immediately.

c-rossgr@uunet.uu.net (05/23/91)

>From:    Padgett Peterson <padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com>

>For basic protection, almost all of the anti-viral software on the
>market is adequate, just like few people take more than basic
>protection from being stung by a wasp. More is considered
>contra-productive & is an accepted risk in working in a garden. When
>it happens, it is annoying but remedies are at hand.

If everybody made backups, I'd be out of business.

>To me, seven people stand out in this area ...
>... not because they are necessarily wonderful people, meetings can
>be explosive, but because they have made available to the public
>information and programs specificaly designed to combat viruses as
>shareware/freeware, not the best way to squeeze the last dollar out of
>the public.

Hey, I *am* a wonderful person, too!  Now, I'm currently trying to
squeeze as much money from the public as possible.  Fortuneately, I
code better than I market...

Ross