Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!amdahl!pacbell!att!occrsh!rjd
From: rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (Randy_Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Possible Fines for Virus Perpetrator
Summary: OK- completely non-destructive
Keywords: Morris, virus, internet
Message-ID: <447@occrsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Nov 88 19:31:57 GMT
References: <456@l5comp.UUCP> <440@occrsh.ATT.COM> <312@pte.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjd@occrsh.UUCP (Randy_Davis)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Network & Data Systems, OKC
Lines: 54

In article <312@pte.UUCP> car@pte.UUCP (Chris Rende) writes:
[.....]
%- "relatively non-destructive": What does that mean? Contradiction in terms.
%  How would you like it if someone did something <relatively non-destructive>
%  to your car? your house? your person?
%
%If you left your car door unlocked in a parking lot, how would you like to
%find someone sleeping in it. That's <relatively non-destructive> right?

 Sure is!!!  Not something you would like, but what did it hurt????  Perhaps
the person sleeping in it protected it from being vandalized (to take the
stupid analogy to the logical conclusion).

  Concerning this rather mindless comment: What is so contradictory about
"relative non-destructive"???  Destruction is always relative to what one
wants.  Think about it....

%It was not necessary to let the worm/virus loose on the world in order to
%<point out> that a problem existed.
%
%car.
%-- 
%Christopher A. Rende                Multics,DTSS,Shortwave,Scanners,StarTrek
%uunet!{umix,edsews}!rphroy!pte!car  TRS-80 Model I: Buy Sell Trade
%Motorola VME1131 M68020 SVR2        Precise Technology & Electronics, Inc.

  Riiiiight.  Perhaps I mispoke myself.  I should have said "Completely Non-
destructive", because the only damage done to the machines was the slowdown
brought about by the worm generating lots of requests to other machines.
  There is already a mechanism in place to limit the number of network
transactions most protocols will do in a given time period.  Why not in
this software?

  Bugs in software are constantly being announced.  Bugs that allow root
access even.  Many are ignored or just not announced loud enough because lazy
administrators do not realize the damage that can be done.  This bug had
a HUGE potential for harm, which may have already occured without the admins
even knowing it (regarding the theft of information).

  Since this bug COULD have been implemented in such a way that it could
operate totally without detection, those administrator probably owe this guy
a LARGE thanks for pointing out to them the hole existed in such a way that
they could not ignore.  It is VERY possible that someone before this guy
found it and was using it to swipe information in a TOTALLY undetected
manner.

  ON THE OTHER HAND - Maybe prosecution should follow, as the only reason it
was noticed was via a bug in the author's own program, otherwise it WOULD
have possibly gone undetected....  (Thinking about this from an "intent"
point of view.)

Come On - THINK about it....

Randy