Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!pollux!ti-csl!m2!holland
From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Virus 101: Chapter 3
Message-ID: <73094@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Date: 23 Mar 89 19:54:24 GMT
References: <4035@ttidca.TTI.COM> <11179@ut-emx.UUCP> <72298@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> <15976@cup.portal.com> <763@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> <400@biar.UUCP>
Sender: news@ti-csl.csc.ti.com
Reply-To: holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander)
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 58

In article <400@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>In article <763@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) writes:
>>Witholding this or ANY information is a TOTALITARIAN concept and is
>>contrary to the principles of a FREE SOCIETY.  Who are YOU to
>>decide what knowledge is "dangerous"?  WHO MADE YOU THE OFFICIAL
>>NETWORK CENSOR?  What do you do next, post a list of books to burn?
>
>I totally agree.  Please publish all the trade secrets of your
>employer immediately.  It's totally contrary to the principles of
>a free society, after all.  Please don't make such ludicrously
>broad statements.

A totally inappropriate analogy!  You have every right to protect *your*
proprietary information.  You have no right to restrict the free flow
of *public* information.  You have no right to decide for others what
*public* information they should and should not know.

What I don't understand is why *you* are taking this position.  I would
have expected that you of all people should appreciate the benefit of
having the inside information on how the viruses work.  If you (and
others) didn't have this information, do you think there be all this
anti-virus software that is currently available?

>>It will help by making anti-viral programs as widespread as some
>>viruses. 
>
>As the author of several of these programs, let me tell you, they are.
>
>You don't publish info on safecracking in order to promote the
>development of better safes; rather, you narrowcast the information
>to appropriate recipients.  A perfect example was the Internet worm.

No, that's an example of a *bad* way to distribute information.  Not
that the distribution should have been limited.  But, it IS an
excellent example of how useful distributing information is.  Imagine
all those system administrators that weren't even aware of how
vulnerable they are.

How do you decide if someone is worthy of receiving this information?
Since there are hackers on this net, how do you decide that someone
doesn't want to just take a stab at an anti-viral program?  Witness
all the freeware anti-viral programs that were written.  If there
wasn't such a free flow of information on this net, they may not
exist.  Then everyone would be forced to wait for the selected
*recipients* to develop a commercial program.  The one who just wants
to duplicate a virus will get the information somehow.  Why make if
more difficult for those who want to combat the viruses?

>* Robert J Woodhead * The true meaning of life is cunningly encrypted and *
>* uunet!biar!trebor * hidden somewhere in this signature...               *
>* Biar Games, Inc.  *                       ...no, go back and look again *

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
hollander@ti.com

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.