Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: AZX@NIHCU.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: virus analogy Message-ID: <0004.9009051851.AA00536@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 4 Sep 90 16:11:21 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 77 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu > >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? O.K. Anti-Virus Virus: 1) Morality I have no moral stand on this. If the earnest goal is to improve the computing community then and anti-virus virus may be a good idea. I have read a lot of attempts to compare human vaccine methods with anti-virus viruses. The analogy between biological and human viruses is another point of hot debate on VIRUS-L. Let's hit that issue first. An analogy need not be perfect, it should, however, be useful. The biological/computer virus analogy is useful. For example, in searching for a moral stance on anti-virus viruses several people here have talked about the Salk and Sabin vaccines. Sadly, there has been much misinformation. The good news is that the issue is being corrected by some better informed writers. It happens that the polio vaccines are not a good example for spreading protection without informed consent. I appeal to the medical community to give us a better example. Maybe a bioethics person can help. In the case of disease I suspect the good of the community comes first. There are other very useful aspects to the hydrocarbon/silicon virus analogy. The analogy works because now we can use words like: infection, spread, and replication, rather than having to invent new terminology. The analogy must, and does, fail at times. Yet a certain amount of flexibility in our interpretations can be quite useful. For example, while it is true that the computer has no inherent immune system, the operating system itself has certain properties of 'resistance' to infection. The introduction of programs like SCAN can be viewed as evolutionary steps in the creation of an immune system. The signature search of the antivirus programs is remarkably similar to certain functions of the mammalian immune system. Thus the organism is not the computer itself, but the computer, operating system, additional software, computer operator, and programmers who distribute the software. The computer is just the site of the infection. To finish the morality issue. It must first be possible to create an antivirus virus that is a significant benefit to the (computer) society without unacceptable damage to either computers or civil rights. 2) Reality I especially like the discussions on the difficulties and risks of producing a 'good' virus. Many of the opinions expressed come from people who have already made up their minds on the whole issue, but the comments themselves warrent merrit. We need to first agree that risks can never be zero, then try to decide what the minimum acceptable risk is. If the risk is far below the risk of getting an 'evil' virus, and the risk of damage is far below that of 'evil' viruses, then there may be some justification for thinking a safe and effective 'good' virus is possible. How about this: What if all the standard antivirus software was set up to identify this 'good' virus, with a standard method of detection and removal? Then only those (foolish) people who do not use detection programs will become infected. Unexpected interactions between 'evil' and 'good' viruses is an important consideration. Also, the danger that a 'good' viruses acting on unusual systems in a bad way could cause damage, is food for thought. There have been many other valuable comments on VIRUS-L. 3) Utility/Necessity If a virus outbreak is out of control because there are too many casual users who are infected, then an antivirus virus specific for that virus may become a necessity rather than just a utility. The future of antivirus viruses may be highly specific programs to aimed at attacking especially bad viruses. The least we could do is experiment with these programs until we feel that we have the expertise to write a good one. Someday we may need it. Andrew R. Mitz The opinions expressed here AZX@NIHCU do not necessarily reflect my own, let alone anyone else's.