Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!tank!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: kelly@uts.amdahl.com (Kelly Goen) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Death of a Virus Message-ID: <0011.9004131250.AA02586@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 13 Apr 90 10:19:01 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 31 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M.Chess) writes: >kelly@uts.amdahl.com (Kelly Goen) writes, apparently in response >to a posting of mine: > >> Yes dave but under environments which use say the VM8086 model on >> the 386 (such as VPIX) file writability and/or hardware acces is >> TOTALLY under the control of unix... weak unix security weak dos >> security good unix security = good dos security in this case.... > >My point was that putting file access under the control of the >operating system *doesn't help*, at least not as much as people >generally assume. Viruses spread by writing to files that they are >*allowed* to write to; they don't depend on a lack of security. If >most programs have write access to only a few other programs, viruses >may not be able to spread as fast; but lowering the exponent on an >exponential spread helps surprisingly little. > >Now of course this may be what you were saying; I'm not entirely sure >I understand the posting... > >DC Well close dave what I was referring to is the running of DOS programs in a virtual environment and preventing access to hardware models or real "Anything..." Viruses written to attack MS-DOS only or the Hardware model under which MS-DOS functions will fail to infect under such an environment.... That is what I was trying to say... of course the platform itself is vunerable to infections native to it...*nix that is... so the security is only for now(i.e. temporary..) cheers kelly