Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Horsfall) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Identify Ashar Virus (PC) Message-ID: <0009.8911131038.AA09039@ge.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 13 Nov 89 03:40:48 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 19 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu It has been pointed out to me (hello Kelly!) that I may have been less than gracious in my response to the report of "ld viruses found." Certainly no offence was meant to John McAfee, and I hope none was taken. However, actual bug details aside, the point I was making that the user of a virus-detector has to have absolute trust in it, and any errant behaviour by the program can only weaken that trust, no matter who the author is. Certainly, a failure to correctly report the number of viruses found would seem to imply a lack of testing. Virus detectors must not only be above reproach, they must be SEEN to be above reproach. Anyone here read comp.risks/RISKS-L ? - -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave