Xref: utzoo news.sysadmin:1483 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:5362
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!deke
From: deke@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: A new risk ? (Was Re: Morris, the law, and his state of mind)
Summary: (mis)reading between the lines?
Message-ID: <1587@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 88 04:20:54 GMT
References: <552@comdesign.CDI.COM> <1570@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> <486@gara.une.oz>
Sender: usenet@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu
Reply-To: deke@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian)
Organization: UR Dept. of Electrical Engg, Rochester NY 14627
Lines: 22


In article <486@gara.une.oz> dheap@gara.UUCP (Dave Heap - PSYS) writes:
>In article <1570@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> deke@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) writes:
>>
>>The medical center/teaching hospital at my university is also network
>>connected.  What if the network overload caused patient monitoring systems
>>there to be sluggish and inadequate?
>
>	Do you really mean that you have critical patient monitoring systems
>running on a user accessible system, subject to clogging & vagaries from
>other users, apart from net viruses? I hope you have made a mistake with
>this statement, or else it's a first class candidate for comp.risks

No, what I REALLY mean is that you only partially quoted me and are now
extrapolating.  The only mistake was the interpretation you imposed on what
I said.  My point is, and was, the "worm" cannot be considered harmless unless
the author KNEW it would do no harm.  He couldn't have known that, and neither
could anyone else.


      ^Deke Kassabian,   deke@ee.rochester.edu   or   ur-valhalla!deke
   Univ of Rochester, Dept of EE, Rochester, NY 14627     (+1 716-275-3106)