Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!sdcsvax!rutgers!gatech!uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!watcgl!grwalter
From: grwalter@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Boot-block contest ( )
Message-ID: <3100@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 88 18:27:41 GMT
References: <2442@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: grwalter@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

In article <2442@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:
>          On the contrary.  If the bootblock is occupied then there would be
>no room for a virus.  Code in the bootblock is not a virus unless it
>propogates itself.  As long as the code does not propogate itself and has
>no harmful side-effects (how will we confirm this???) and includes the source
>then what is the problem?

The problem is that there may be people out there who would write virus's
if they could, but they currently don't know enough. Giving them source to
routines that patch into the bootblock would be like handing a flamethrower
to an arsonist - not very bright. (Just look at the disk-wiping SCA
virus mutantions; they didn't come out of thin air; somebody took the working
example and made it deadly).

Concerning occupied bootblocks with no room for a virus ... commercial
software has occupied bootblocks; the virus just replaces the bootblock
with its own. Le voila ! Room for a virus.

	fred
-- 
 CSNet: grwalter@watcgl.waterloo.edu
  UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watcgl!grwalter
CDNnet: grwalter@watcgl.waterloo.cdn
  ARPA: grwalter%watcgl.waterloo.edu@csnet-relay.arpa