Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M.Chess) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: re: Antivirus-viruses Message-ID: <0002.9008031127.AA06769@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 2 Aug 90 13:33:09 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 31 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu Anthony Appleyard writes, among other things: > For example, if Den Zuk hadn't got the bug of malfunctioning on > small disks, it would likely have spread largely ignored, and > flushed out the harmful Brain from most of the places where it > breeds... I imagine there will be lots of flames on this, and I don't really want to add to them (on the other hand, I don't want there to be no response to the item, so here I am!). I'm not sure if Mr. Appleyard means to imply that if the Den Zuk had only been less buggy, it would have been a Good Thing; if that's the intent, though, I'd like to disagree strongly! Any virus (with or without the Den Zuk's Brain-removal, "logo" and other side effects) that messes around with my system without my knowledge is a Bad Thing. It will eventually spread to some place where it will do harm (a non-standard disk format that it doesn't notice, but messes up; a new version of the op system that it's not compatible with; or whatever). The only anti-virus virus that would be at all defensible would be one that announced itself in large and unmissable letters when first run, and gave the user the option (which I, personally, would always exercise) to tell it to erase itself completely from the system. Even then, I don't entirely share Mr. Appleyard's confidence that there are already so many sample viruses out there that one more won't provide budding virus writers with extra education. I'm not certain that it would, but I wouldn't want to take the chance... DC