Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc:152 comp.sys.ibm.pc:9935
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ukma!sean
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PC Aquarium program
Message-ID: <7954@g.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 87 07:59:32 GMT
References: <1070@sjuvax.UUCP> <19637@amdahl.amdahl.com> <850@neoucom.UUCP> <418@picuxa.UUCP> <249@dalcsug.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 25
Summary: RUNNING FROM WRITE PROTECTED FLOPPY IS **NOT** ADEQUATE TEST!!!

In article <249@dalcsug.UUCP> robinson@dalcsug.UUCP (John Robinson) writes:
>In article <418@picuxa.UUCP>, tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) writes:
>> In article <850@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes:
>> -> <<<Aquarium tries to write to disk upon exit>>
>> 
>> I ran aquarium from a write-protected floppy, and it did not give me any
>That should be an adequate test.

No way!  If I were writing a disk bomber, I'd definitely have it immune
to any disk access errors.  If someone stuck in a write protected floppy
and got an error from a program that isn't supposed to be writing to disk,
they'd immediately get suspicious.  Then there's always the possibility
that some dope would think that because the program didn't bomb it was
only reading the floppy.

The aquarium program is probably not a bomb, but don't assume it isn't
simply because there are no errors when you write protect a floppy.

Sean

-- 
--  Sean Casey               sean@ms.uky.edu,  sean@UKMA.BITNET
--  (the Empire guy)         {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean
--  University of Kentucky in Lexington Kentucky, USA
--  "Inconceivable!"