Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: cbp@foster.avid.oz.au (Cameron Paine) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: Antivirus viruses Message-ID: <0011.9008301334.AA25774@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 27 Aug 90 12:14:39 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 25 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu Thus far, the debate has concentrated on the ethics of viruses designed to `destroy' other viruses. One or two contributors have touched on the *real* issue but their comments seem to have been lost in the hubbub. While I'm unfamiliar with other parts of the world, I'm sure you can all think of non-indigenous (biological) organisms which when released, ran rampant in their new environment. In Australia, we have many examples: cane toads, rabbits, blackberries and the prickly-pear cactus spring immediately to mind. Since none of you can *guarantee* that you can write software that will perform without fail on all potential hosts, there is no question. Such an approach is doomed before it starts. A case in point is SCANV66 (no offence to John intended - I selected it because most readers will have read about it recently). Since it wasn't an auto-propagating program we simply had to note John's bug report and replace it with 66B. Think about it... and then stop thinking about it. It's a disaster waiting to happen. cbp - -- cbp@foster.avid.oz - ACSnet cbp%foster.avid.oz.au@uunet.uu.net - Internet ..!{hplabs,mcvax,nttlab,ukc,uunet}!munnari!foster.avid.oz.au!cbp - UUCP