Messages in this thread |  | | From | Olaf Titz <> | Subject | Re: [masq] 1st virus in Linux :( (fwd) | Date | 08 Feb 1997 11:44:45 +0100 |
| |
Eric Hoeltzel <eric@dogbert.sitewerks.com> 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 damage.
Personally, I view people who call themselves "ethical virus writers" with suspicion.
olaf -- ___ Olaf.Titz@inka.de or @{stud,informatik}.uni-karlsruhe.de ____ __ o <URL:http://www.inka.de/~bigred/> <IRC:praetorius> __/<_ >> Just as long as the wheels keep on turning round _)>(_)______________ I will live for the groove 'til the sun goes down << ____
|  |