Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!texbell!attctc!bobc
From: bobc@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Bob Calbridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Binary: McAfee's SCANV52 (latest version, includes AIDS)
Message-ID: <10853@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 6 Jan 90 14:16:38 GMT
References: <1027@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <13153@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 29

In article <13153@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes:
` Ever since the virus scares started, I have stopped using free software
` unless I really needed it.  I would love to run this virus detector,
` but it seems to me that a virus detector is a perfect place to transmit
` a new virus.
 
` The only way I would feel comfortable running such a program obtained
` over the net is if it were distributed in source form.  I would then
` compile it myself and use it.
 
` Does anybody have similar feelings?  Is there a reason that the source
` is not included in the previous posting?
 
` Tim

If I were the author of a virus checker program I would be very leary of
distributing source code for two reasons.  First, it might give others hints
as to how to implement viruses and secondly, it could be used to create a
program the nature of which it is trying to prevent and having it distributed
under the authors name, causing damage to the author's reputation.  This
could very well affect the author's income if he was erroneously connected
to a damaging product.
 
Bob
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=    More stupid questions available on request from                          =
-     bobc@attctc                     Your humble servant (real humble)       -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=