CTDONATH%SUNRISE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (09/23/89)
(regarding a note of 9/22/89 on VALERT-L) Using a virus to destroy other viruses is a good idea IN THEORY. It assumes two points: 1. the AVV (anti-virus virus) is assumed to work properly under all conditions; 2. the virus-writers are assumed to not create new anti-anti-virus-virus viruses i.e. start a viral arms race. Regarding point 1: Robert Morris Jr. seemed to want his worm to be "well behaved", with only one rather tame worm living on each system on Internet. However, one little bug (from what little I know) caused the worm to run out of control. Like the author of the Internet worm, the authors of the AVV would probably be crucified if anything went wrong. In fact, the virus hysteria would cause a major uproar even if it worked (would you like a virus to appear on your system without your permission even if it did no damage?) Point 2: I assume one reason that viruses are written is because it "lives", i.e. it exists, multiplies, travels, and survives in a way resembling, say, a flea. The existance of a virus that "eats" viruses would be seen as a challenge that would become a "survival of the fittest" contest. A viral war would break out between the "bad" virus writers and the "good" virus writers. The battlefield would be computers in general. - -=- CTDONATH@SUNRISE -=-