JS05STAF%MIAMIU.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Joe Simpson) (09/23/89)
Recently another proposal to create an anti-virus virus was made on valert-l. I posted a note that discussion belonged in virus-l and that I would be responding here. [Ed. Thank you!] Concerning writing an anti-virus virus. Such an entity would make unauthorized use of equipment not owned or operated by this virus's creator. The creator would be acting in just as immoral a fashion as the creators of joke, political, or deliberately desctructive viruses. In fact, I prefer not to make moral judgements based upon the intent of the virus creator. I would prefer that they simply refrain from this anti-social behavior no matter what the motivation.
dnewton@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Newton) (09/26/89)
One of the arguments raised against AVV's is the possible escalation of of viral warfare. It seems to me that this has already happened with the vaccine programs. I'd be almost certain that most virus writers will try to circumvent detection by writing (perhaps) a self-modifying virus, or a resident virus that will attempt to detect detection. If any comp.virus readers have read any of William Gibson's "Cyperpunk" novels, in which software protection (ICE) is handled by AI, the concept of AVV's will be nothing new. From a technological standpoint, they provide an interesting challenge, both for the virus writer and anti-virus virus writer. David L. Newton | dnewton@carroll1.UUCP | Quote courtesy of (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | Marie Niechwiadowicz, (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha, WI 53186 | Boston College. [Q]: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? [A]: The fish.
WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.ARPA (09/28/89)
Chris Poet invites comment on the idea of an anti-virus virus.
Chris you are correct. The idea is not original and has been
discussed here ad nauseum. The consensus appears to be that it is not
a good idea.
Certain behavior is reprehensible regardless of its motive or
intention. One such class of behavior is misrepresentation. Nice
people do not resort to lies, regardless of motive. A subset of
misrepresentation is stealth. Nice people do not intrude unannounced
and univited. Good intentions in such cases rarely excuse the
behavior.
Finally, some behavior is so potentially dangerous that it cannot be
justified by good intentions. Spreading any kind of computer code by
automatic replication is dangerous and not justified by the intent or
value of the code so distributed. Nor is it justified by any
superiority of this method of distribution over any other. The
decision to employ protection is a personal one. Open distribution by
overt channels is preferred.
I am glad that you sought advice before embarking on this ill-advised
scheme. Having sought it and received it, I hope that you will heed
it.
[Ed. I agree with Dr. Murray in that this topic has been discussed
here ad nauseum - the general concensus of which is that it is not a
good idea. Unless anyone has anything significant to add to the
conversation, let's please consider this topic closed. Ok? Please?
:-)]
____________________________________________________________________
William Hugh Murray 216-861-5000 Fellow, 203-966-4769 Information
System Security 203-964-7348 (CELLULAR)
ARPA: WHMurray@DOCKMASTER
Ernst & Young MCI-Mail: 315-8580
2000 National City Center TELEX: 6503158580
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 FAX: 203-966-8612
Compu-Serve: 75126,1722
INET: WH.MURRAY/EWINET.USA
21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D DASnet: [DCM1WM]WMURRAY
New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 PRODIGY: DXBM57A
---------------------------------------------------------------------