Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
From: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Malicious posting worries (was re: A counter-example...)
Summary: It's already happened...and it could have been much worse.
Keywords: Be Practical
Message-ID: <3331@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 88 09:45:37 GMT
References: <266@octopus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Unix Systems Staff
Lines: 65

In article <266@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
>	1) Booby traps are extremely rare. As far as I know, no posting
>		in ANY binary or source group has ever been booby trapped.

Not true; a shar file posted to net.sources some years ago rearranged
the files in one's directory when it was unpacked.  This was enough
to confuse a lot of people; if it had removed them, the problem
would have been far worse.

Hmm, I just remembered a second instance: a game source mailed a note
to its author *over the trans-Atlantic link* each and every time it was
executed.  Not malicious, unless you're paying the transmission costs.

>>Earlier, I wrote:
>>I have no particular desire to disenfranchise microcomputer users;
>>however, I have no particular desire to assist in the demise of
>>their software and data holdings by being a party to the distribution
>>of binary programs of a malicious nature.
>
>Please let THEM worry about that. You are not going to be held accountable
>if a 'malicious' posting (binary OR source) is posted to the net. If it ever
>happens, I'm sure that the all-out search for the offending party, and
>ensuing nuclear flamefest, will break all records :-).

In response to the first sentence: I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Frankly, I would not be at all surprised to be named in a suit for damages
resulting from the execution of a binary posted to Usenet and downloaded
from the news system here.  I might not be held liable; but the prospect
of being hauled into court does not thrill me.  If, on the other hand,
everyone using a program that has passed through our system is willing
to sign a sworn statement to the effect that they won't hold me "accountable"
for anything it does, then, and only then, will I "let THEM worry about that."

For obvious reasons, I doubt that this will happen.

In response to the second sentence: As I pointed out in private mail to
you, there is at least one way to sabotage a binary (or, admittedly,
a source, although that would be much easier to detect) that will render
detection of the offender, or the offender's system, almost impossible.
And even if such an offender is found, and flamed, and so on, those affected
by the sabotaged program might find that of little consolation.

>And my response is: these 'unpleasant possibilities' exist right now
>in many forms on the net. They are worries that we must all live with.

I do not agree that we "must all live with" these problems.  Further, I
feel that a partial solution to the problem is to stop carrying binaries.
A total solution would be to stop carrying source code as well.  I am
unwilling to accept the loss of functionality that this latter would
entail, while I am willing to accept the risk that it poses.  However,
in the former case (binaries), I am not willing to accept the
functionality/risk tradeoff.

Why, some of you might ask, do I not just shut them off locally?
Well, I just may do that at some point.  On the other hand, I do
try to administer news here in a way that is consistent with the
practices used by the rest of Usenet, and so I find that attempting
to persuade others on this issue is a useful endeavor -- if the day
comes that I remove those groups, I'd prefer to be doing it as the
outgrowth of a consensus on the issues rather than as a unilateral
action.  To look at it another way: attempting to balance the competing
interests of our users, our resources, our news neighbors, and Usenet
as a whole is sometimes difficult.

Rich