Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Antivirus viruses Message-ID: <0015.9008221137.AA19228@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 21 Aug 90 01:22:06 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 20 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu erickson@lclark.BITNET writes: >I see no new dangers users could find themselves in if antiviruses do in fact >make an appearance in the computer world. What about the dangers from the anti-viruses themselves?? You made an analogy between the wdef virus and a potential deceiving trojan- horse-like strain of an anti-virus. Perhaps the analogy could be better made between the wdef virus and an anti-virus itself. Like the wdef virus, an anti-virus would apparently be intended to spread without causing harm, but in reality would cause an increase in crashes and therefore data loss. I don't think "anti-virus" is an appropriate name. I recommend the name "virus". Nobody's saying they think the wdef virus is ok because it doesn't seem to be intended to do any harm; similarly I don't think an anti-virus would be acceptable just because of the author's good intentions. ajr