Alan_J_Roberts@Sun.COM (09/01/89)
Ken van Wyk asks about the Columbus day Virus. It's the same as the DataCrime virus versions one and two (not to be confused with the DataCRime II). Columbus day is October 12. The Datacrime versions 1 and 2 activate on October 12. I would discourage the use of "Columbus Day Virus" as a name, since DatCrime has been an accepted name for quite some time. Also, the Lehigh original virus has been sporadically reported at dozens of installations outside of the university for over a year. It is not a particulary successful replicator -- probably because of the extremely short activation fuse - and it is difficult to detect and report because there are few symptoms prior to activation. Buit there should certainly be no surprise that it's in the public domain. In John McAfee's report to the CVIA on epidemiology he writes - "The belief that viruses can be contained by early counter-action is belied by the Lehigh University experience. I have spoken to a number of individuals at the University who belived that the virus had somehow been contained because "no copies of the virus were distributed to outside organizations". This assumed, of course, that the original virus writer gave up after being foiled at Lehigh and did not insert the virus at any other location, and that all copies of the virus at Lehigh had indeed been accounted for. The first issue rests solely in the hands of the perpetrator and is beyond any containment controls. The second issue relies on an error-free containment process - allowing no possibility for overlooking, losing or mistaking an infected diskette. In any case, the Lehigh virus was by no means contained. I received a copy, as did virtually every virus researcher, in mid-1988, and infection reports issued throughout the year from universities, corporations and individual computer users." I think John said it better than I could, but my sentiments exactly. Alan