Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: FXJWK@ALASKA.BITNET (Jo Knox - UAF Academic Computing) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Anti-virus viruses Message-ID: <0001.9009041303.AA00213@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 31 Aug 90 21:06:57 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 35 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu Okay, okay: Saulk/Salk/Sabin---I agree with others who have stated that the analogy is a stretch; in fact, I think we should drop this particular line; the analogy is irrelevant. Maybe we should drop the entire discussion of anti-virus viruses; as far as I can tell, some here tend to favor the idea, and some think it reprehensible, and I don't think anyone has changed anyone else's opinion... Before I drop the subject, though, I would like to rebut WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL: > > An anti-virus could be written to infect only certain types of > > operating systems. > > No, I am sorry, it could not. It could be written not to infect > certain known operating systems, but it could not be written to > "infect only certain" ones. The susceptibility of unknown systems > cannot be known. You just about lost me, here; I was thinking in terms of "platforms", rather than differing OS versions. Still, I disagree: I haven't heard of any virus which is infectious across platforms (IBM-Mac or anything else), though I guess "Frankie" is getting close. Every virus that I know of is already platform-specific, and I don't see why it shouldn't be easy to make a virus OS-specific: (pseudo code) if( os-version != "6.0.5" ) exit; infect_it(); Perhaps I'm contributing to this "beating the dead horse"; can we hear from some of the fence-sitters out there? Has anyone's mind been changed during these discussions? It may also be we're all just getting typing practice: we will see viruses of this sort, and I think not too long from now. I hope whoever releases such creates a well-behaved little demon...!