[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:0.021 / U:5.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site