rww@demon.siemens.com (Richard W West) (06/05/90)
I have had just the strangest thought about all of the commercial products out there on the market that protect from viruses, for example Symantec's Anti-Virus for the Macintosh -- a product that "learns." Did the thought ever occur to anyone that the possibility is there for companies to make and distribute their own new viruses just to keep purchases of their product up? I mean the potential there is great, and all of the benefits go to the companies. Each time a virus comes out, the companies soon follow the viruses with their "vaccine". Take my example of SAM. Sure, the program allows for definitions of new viruses, but you need to buy an update to the program if you want to have the capability of removing the infection from programs. As with most other programs (the good ones), you have to purchase a brand new version (an update) to combat the new virus. This leaves a greater potential for companies to profit from the creation of new viruses. Hey, sorry.. it was just a thought. - -Rich West Siemens Corporate Research and Development Princeton, New Jersey Internet: rww@demon.siemens.com
rww@demon.siemens.com (Richard W West) (06/07/90)
- -From: Peter Jaspers-Fayer <SOFPJF@vm.uoguelph.ca> - - - -Hmm, and do you also imagine that while the dentist is in there with - -the drill that (just maybe) some extra bits of enamel may get - -chipped off a nearby tooth, so that you'll get another cavity andd - -have to come back sooner? I guess there has to be some trust - -someplace. Yes, that is true, there has to be some trust someplace, but too much is a bad thing. - -From D1660@AppleLink.Apple.COM Wed Jun 6 10:46:02 1990 - - - -You're not the first person to think that maybe it's the commercial anti-virus - -programmers who are writing viruses. In fact, you're wrong. Also, don't you - -think it's judgemental to single out a product like SAM and suggest a - -malicious motive lurks behind its development and distribution? - - - -The facts are: - -1) The SAM author has never written a virus; - - - -2) The author spends a huge amount of time and energy making the product as - - powerful as possible for the benefit of SAM's users; - - - -3) The author would be making his living on other software if there weren't a - - need for SAM. Contrary to your thought, many people consider his effort a - - service to the Mac community, not a scheme to bilk the Mac users! - - - -4) SAM 2.0 was upgraded to allow SAM users to get better defense against new - - viruses at no cost. Once the virus definition is entered by the user, there - - is next to no chance of becoming infected even unknowingly. And the proper - - virus definition is posted usually within a day of the discovery of a new - - virus. All registered SAM users are send a postcard with the proper virus - - definition free of charge. Symantec has even stopped its subscription - - service since there is no need for it. - - - -5) It is somewhat true that upgrading SAM for virus removal requires a modest - - $15 fee. BUT, this simply covers Symantec costs. It was judged too - - dangerous for the user to enter his own repair information, and posting a - - program that would update SAM with the repair information could lead to - - someone using the program for a Trojan Horse. Hence, the decision was made - - to distribute SAM 2.0 as you now see it. In the future, something even - - better will be done... - - - -In short, the SAM author has nothing to gain from writing a virus, and also - -does not have the time, energy, or motivation to write a virus. - - - -Rich, I am an honest person, trying to make an honest living. And from my - -contact with the other anti-virus authors, I don't suspect that any of them - -would do what you suggest either. - - - -Paul Cozza - -Author of SAM I apologize for singling out SAM in that way, but I was aiming the article at the entire market, not just the single product. SAM was an example, it was not to be portrayed as a criminal. I had only realized that a great amount of trust is being put in the hands of large corporations, and the two words "trust" and "large corporation" do not commonly appear in the same sentence. I am not trying to say that we should not trust Symantec or any other such company, I am saying, though, that we, as consumers, should not put our entire trust in any large corporation, no matter how good the cause. I pointed out a rather large blind spot in the consumer mind. You mention that you are an "honest person, trying to make an honest living," and I truly believe you, but can you say that about everyone within the Symantec Corporation? What I am trying to say is that there is always someone out there who will think of another way of making another dollar. It may not be within the Symantec corporation, but there are other companies out there, and there are many people working for each of those companies. It would be very incorrect to say that each of those employees, at least the higher-ups in the companies, would never consider or try implementing such an idea. Just as a side note, I am a proud owner of Symantec's Anti-Virus for the Macintosh, and I have been testing it for building-wide implementation/ installation here at Siemens. I personally feel that SAM is the best virus protection utility out there on the market to date. - -Rich West Siemens Corporate Research and Development Labs Princeton, New Jersey Internet: rww@demon.siemens.com