Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ns!ddb
From: ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Are these binaries "safe"?
Message-ID: <727@ns.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 88 19:37:19 GMT
References: <4774@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <30587@clyde.ATT.COM> <8475@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN
Lines: 38

In article <8475@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) writes:
  [while mildly flaming another poster who will remain nameless]
> 
> You either
> 
> a)  Really don't believe that a virus can exist.
> 
> If this is true, then you don't have a high enough level of expertise with
> computers to be fooling around with a virus.  If you had a higher level of
> expertise, you would realize that viruses are not only possible but they
> are (unfortunately) almost trivial to write.
> 
> or
> 
> b)  Are trying to trick the net into sending you a virus.
> 
> In which case under no circumstances should you be allowed to study a
> virus.

    I'm sorry, but I'm getting REALLY sick of this attitude, which
I've been seeing here and on Fidonet for the last few years.  I
believe in viruses in theory, and I believe that they exist in
pracice, but I've never actually seen any evidence for their
existence.  
    What you are saying is that anybody who expresses interest in
seeing a virus is a fool or a criminal; this is blatant nonsese.  Some
of us want to see viruses out of scientific curiosity, and some of us
have been trying to get somebody to send one for YEARS, simply to get
some sort of objective estimate of their real frequency.  
    Based on several years of this, the only statement about viruses I
could support with any kind of evidence is "Viruses don't exist".
Since I don't believe that statement, it bothers me that it's the only
one I can offer support for.
-- 
	-- David Dyer-Bennet
	...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
	ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
	Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300