Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: HORN%HYDRA@sdi.polaroid.com Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Death of a Virus Message-ID: <0002.9004111326.AA11326@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 10 Apr 90 16:39:00 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 25 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu A more accurate analogy might be the introduction of clean water systems rather than the elimination of smallpox. The widespread use of modern operating systems with memory and device protection will greatly hinder the spread of viruses, but by no means prevent their spread. I can think of methods to implement Unix and VM viruses. Most of these depend upon sloppy system administration methods for rapid spreading, but at least for now sloppy administration is the norm. Some of these have been demonstrated by attacks like the Internet Worm. But with a more modern hardware and operating system it is much harder to spread and easier to cure. This is similar to what you find today with water-borne diseases. Typhoid, cholera, and dysentery are by no means eliminated in the US, but they are no longer a normal cause of death. They promptly return after disasters break down the water systems (well cholera is still rare, but would recur if the breakdowns lasted long enough). Probably the greatest strength of most current systems is the diversity of hardware and operating system revisions. This forces the use of source (non-executable) for most inter-machine transfers and greatly hinders the spread of viruses and worms. The strong commercial push for standard binary interfaces is a danger in that it will greatly increase the size of the computer population that is vulnerable to any one specific attack. R Horn horn%hydra@polaroid.com