Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!udel!gatech!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: The ultimate fix!!!
Message-ID: <2747@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 4 Oct 88 10:46:40 GMT
References: <681@zehntel.UUCP> <3084@hermes.ai.mit.edu> <4197@thorin.cs.unc <9680@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 44

In article <9680@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com writes:
> >UNIX system, with root privileges only used for root commands, this could take
> >quite a while.

> Unlike a virus,
> it does not attempt to alter the genetic code of host cells (read: alter
> the executable code of legitimate programs) for reproduction and
> camouflage.

Ick. Now *this* is a tough job. I would think that a "virus" would have to
remain a "bacterium" at least until a superuser executed it. Something a
non-protected virus doesn't have to worry about.

> Why would the user send a 68020 executable to a
> person with a 68000 machine?  He wouldn't.  The virus is assured of being
> copied to environments where it will execute with no problems.

Why would someone send an executable from one machine to another in the first
place? I have only ever seen one non-commercial program distributed in this
way, and I *certainly* didn't run it. Given the near-universal availability
of 'C', this is an awfully minor problem.

Maybe UNIX viruses can spread pretty fast in academic environments, but here
in the real world people don't pass around copies of rogue. And, again, any
virus is restricted to one CPU family.

I'm not really worried about a shell-script virus. You could probably hide one
in a sharchive, but since it's human readable it'd become real obvious real
quick who's responsible.
> 
> Plus, there are interpreted languages that are at least somewhat
> system-independent.  Shell scripts and Rexx programs are as good if not
> better vectors for a virus than raw executables.
> 
> By the way, Fred Cohen's original research was done on a Unix machine, as
> noted in an earlier posting.
> 
> 
> Dan Hankins


-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?