Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att-ih!cuuxb!ltuxa!ll1a!markn
From: markn@ll1a.UUCP (Mark Nettleingham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Shareware and viruses
Message-ID: <2157@ll1a.UUCP>
Date: 19 Mar 88 15:22:43 GMT
Organization: A.T.&T. Lisle, Ill.
Lines: 42
Keywords: shareware viruses protection


	While pondering the many postings to this group about
viruses, and the shareware problem (not enough people register and
pay for shareware programs). It occurred to me that there may be a
way to solve both problems at once. Or at least improve the current
situation.

	What we need is:

	1. A data base of check sums (CRC, whatever) for each of the
	   programs on a system.

	2. A program that will maintain and update this data base.

	3. Some way to populate this data base with the proper
	   information. After all the program you just downloaded
	   from XYZZY bulletin board may be infected, and you won't
	   be able to detect an unknown virus unless you know what
	   the check code for the original program should be.

	Given that we have the above doctor program, an author could
use it to create a check list for his program and send the list to
all who register the program. For "freeware" programs a nominal fee
could be charged 1 to 5 dollars perhaps. Given an original list from
the programs author, doctor could test the program before it's run
on the users "regular" disk and detect any viruses that may be
present.

	Some one wishing to distribute an infected program would
have to send a list to the victim (via US mail) before the program
could do any damage. I doubt that a software terrorist would want
the public to know even the city the program originated from, much
less an address.

	I am NOT the author of any shareware programs, nor do I
advocate enforcement of software license via terror. I would simply
like to be able to trust the many good programs that I download. I
believe that the above proposal (if it can be implemented) would at
least give us a greater degree of certainty than we currently have.

	Mark Nettleingham
	...!ihnp4!ll1!markn