Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: Whale Virus Information (PC)
Message-ID: <0008.9009181331.AA11189@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 90 03:32:35 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 27
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

portal!cup.portal.com!Alan_J_Roberts@Sun.COM writes:
>This is a forward from John McAfee:
>
>	I'm afraid this virus represents a new and nasty turn in the
>evolution of viruses.  Of the more than 9,000 bytes of code in the
>virus, more than 7,000 bytes appear to be dedicated solely to avoiding
>detection and removal.  It seems fairly effective.

Computer "organisms" have always had the potential to alter their own
"genetic code" at will.  Encryption is far easier than changing DNA to
something else.

How complicated and effective does a "virus" have to be before you
call it a bacterium?  And have we yet seen the computer equivalent of
a multicellular organism (maybe the Internet worm?)?  (Only in a
multitasking OS, of course ...)  Will the future bring a "social
insect", identical programs operating cooperatively, ant-like, on
multiple nodes of a large network, seeking storage space and CPU time
for their own ends?

I wonder what fraction of the human genetic code is "dedicated solely
to avoiding detection and removal"?  Perhaps as much as that dedicated
to avoiding starvation, or failure to reproduce.

- --
	Howard A. Landman
	landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman