[lkml]   [1997]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [masq] 1st virus in Linux :( (fwd)
Eric Hoeltzel  <> wrote:
> subs. Funny, in those days the ethical virus writers took an extremely
> dim view of damaging code (replication itself was not defined as
> damaging) and a slightly dimmer view of people like McAfee. They

I don't want to start the old virus flame war again, but let me just
point out that even just replication itself _is_ damage. In order to
"work" as desired, a virus has to modify existing programs (for a
broad range of the definition of "programs", e.g. including boot
loaders etc). There are always programs where modification == damage.
Imagine the (desirable) OS where every executable has a secure
checksum stored somewhere else in a high-security area.
Even just the additional resources taken by the replication constitute

Personally, I view people who call themselves "ethical virus writers"
with suspicion.

___ or @{stud,informatik} ____
__ o <URL:> <IRC:praetorius>
__/<_ >> Just as long as the wheels keep on turning round
_)>(_)______________ I will live for the groove 'til the sun goes down << ____

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.064 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site