Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M..Chess)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: re: Universal virus detectors: Once more with feeling
Message-ID: <0004.9002071642.AA05334@ge.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 00:00:00 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Lines: 24
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

> David Chess continues, in essense, to complain about the user
> interface.

Not at all!  I'm saying that, no matter *what* the user interface
looks like, a system that relies on a human to decide whether or not a
timestamp-change is legitimate is no more a "universal virus detector"
than a program that relies on the user to type in the answers is a
"universal problem solver".

Jerry's point that most machines are not used for program development
is well-taken.  But the machines which -are- used for program
development are the ones where a virus could do the most damage (if I
buy a program that was infected with a virus "at the factory", the
fact that it can't spread any more on my machine isn't all that much
comfort).  It's also important to remember that "program development"
has to include writing BAT and CMD files, tailoring HyperCard cards,
and anything else which can effect, in a general-purpose way, how the
machine acts; taking that into account, many machines are used for
program development, and the proportion that are is likely to grow
rapidly as "programming" becomes easier.  It also becomes less clear
that an "is executable" bit is useable.  Would a Basic program be
marked as executable?  Would a shell script?

DC