Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: hartley@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: virus analogy Message-ID: <0007.9008301719.AA26303@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 29 Aug 90 15:53:09 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 58 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu >> me >Bridget Rutty >> The Salk vaccine (the primary polio vaccine in the US). This >> vaccine is a live, contagious, virus. Any Physician who administers it >> is releasing a virus into the population. > Physicians do not administer any medication, vaccine or otherwise, > without understanding the risks and benefits. You mean the known risks and benifits. More will inevitably surface when the treatment is used widely. In any case, this just amounts to knowing that the Salk Vaccine can cause paralytic disease and death - but not too often. See my discusion of bugs in live vaccines. > Patients do not get vaccines without consenting. Wrong! The Salk vaccine is CONTAGIOUS. It automatically administers itself without anyones consent or even knowledge. There is no consent and no one is informed. >> a version of a highly destructive virus from which the >> destructive code has been removed. > In the situation described, there is no informed consent and to my > mind such a program is no different than the virus with which it > competes. There is a big difference. The vaccine is less distructive. No one would use this type of approach against a relatively harmless virus like WDEF, for example. It may be no diferent to your mind but it would surely be different from point of view of the guy whose disk didn't get wiped. Note that the use of a live vaccine does not require anyone to lower his guard. >Mike Castle > I don't see much help in the way of having anti-viral viruses as > competition for "nasty" viruses either. I don't know all that much > about viruses (I just read this discussion to try to be an "informed > user"), and I don't see where or why a virus would worry about > competition for infection. Most (computer) viruses will not infect the same file more than once. If they did they would swamp the system and distroy their chances of spreading. Because of this different strains of the same virus will compete (as long as one virus recognizes the other as self). It is also posible to use an "immune" mechanism. Replace the "disk muncher" payload with an add for anti-viral software (It would be sure to get instant attention! Sort of like an AIDS vacine that changes people's behavior - by turning them purple.) ... Just a momment ... I'm not sure I like the direction this chain of thought is leading! Not an offical position of anyone. Ralph Hartley hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil