Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!rhesus!bin
From: bin@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: The viral high ground--go for it while I puke in the corner
Message-ID: <425@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 88 21:46:02 GMT
References: <16800@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 24

From article <16800@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student):
> Ignoring the fact that your analogy is indeed irrelevant, note that I'm
> NOT suggesting that anything crippling be done--just something that keeps
> security a high company/university/institute priority across ARPANET and
> elsewhere.  I simply do not expect this attitude to come voluntarily.

But if your "drill" isn't crippling, then it won't accomplish its
intended end.  Because if it's not crippling, it can be (and would
be) ignored.

I suspect that such drills could even be dangerous, in the sense that
they could easily come to be viewed as the boy crying wolf.  Then when
the real virus comes in (and of course it will initially mimic a drill),
all the sysadmins will yawn and say, "Oh, another drill.  Hm."

Also, it seems to me that belittling the value of ethics is defeatist.
You yourself concur that the net will not be made totally secure, but
can be made *more* secure.  It seems reasonable that a greater degree
of ethical behavior (instilled, say, by highly adverse consequences for
unethical behavior) would also make the net *more* secure, even though
not totally secure.

Paul DuBois
dubois@primate.wisc.edu	rhesus!dubois