Why Virus Writers are Useful 465
man_of_mr_e writes "Security site Zone-h.org has an interview with Professor Samuel D. Forrester, one of the worlds leading immunologists. In this interview he asserts that immunity is built by infection, and without it you would have a much weaker ecosystem. "
So if I understand well... (Score:4, Funny)
lol!
Re:So if I understand well... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's kind-of wrong anyway (Score:2, Funny)
An infection destroys the weaklings and the unlucky, leaving the robust and lucky still standing.
If an infection destroys too many of the unlucky, or if the weaklings were the only ones carrying the genetics (or protein rings) required for defense against the next big infection, well... it's the Telephone Sanitisers and The "B" Ark all over again. Be a good lad and throw me my rubber duck, will you? (-:
Re:He's kind-of wrong anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Immunity to computer viruses/worms and the ilk is indeed created/coded as soon as the susceptibility is detected. Sometimes that happens before an infection, sometimes it happens afterwards.
So yes, infection can expose immunity, but it can also lead to the purposeful creation of immunity (immunization). For example: if smallpox didn't previously exist, would a vaccine have been developed against it? I doubt it. Then again, in that case, one could argue that the intelligence of the smallpox susceptible population had the effect of making them immune.
Finally, since I can't read the Slashdotted site, I can only go from the tagline. It mentions building immunity, not creating it. Removing the susceptible parts of the population does build immunity in the population as a percentage.
You're kind-of wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
While in some measure your statement has validity, it doesn't quite get the point.
In the creation of antibodies and other receptors in the immune system, cells literally rearrange their chromosomal DNA to create antibodies with different specificities. That means each cell has a different potential specificity. When the body gets exposed to a new pathogen, it probably has one or two cells that will make an antibody that can respond to it. If it does, it only has a very few cells that make appropriate antibodies -- in effect, at the moment of exposure, the body has no immunity, only the potential for immunity. Those cells have to be stimulated to reproduce and develop into specialized antibody factories before the body has anything sufficient to fight the infection. The immunity gets created based on existing potential.
Immunology works as a metaphor. The analogy in this case is the following:
A virus is released. Several people have the knowledge to patch the security hole exploited by the virus. The larger system of users does not become immune until those with the knowledge write and distribute the patch. The patch doesn't exist before the virus challenges it. It gets created out of existing potential.
Re:He's kind-of wrong anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. That's exactly the way our immune systems work in some ways. The body has innate immunity against certain germs i.e. the immunity exists before the germ even infects.
Unfortunately I don't think we yet have anti-virus software like this yet, specifically, software that could predict what a virus might look like (work like) and then make a patch for it before it even exits. I bet software like this is created in less than a decade though. probably less than a few years...
Re:So if I understand well... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the opposite of security through obscurity -- the security issue is forced into public awareness and the software company is forced to fix it. Obviously this line of argument doesn't affect the fact that people are lazy and won't patch their systems.
-- Azaroth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Depopulation. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that those who survive get better at surviving viruses, but that diverts energy away from the constructive activities that we could be undertaking if we weren't defending ourselves from the unholy alliance of Bill Gates and half-assed teenaged code wankers.
Weed out the week and stupid, leave only the competent. We need less computer users anyway. We can go back to good old BBSing and a USENET fr
Re:So if I understand well... (Score:2)
Yes... I wouldn't be surprised if one of these recent RPC worms was written by the Department of Homeland Security as a "warning shot" to get all these systems "fixed" before some "terrorist" wrote something of a more malicious nature.
Re:So if I understand well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's right. Just because the virus writers do play a role in the "ecosystem" of the Internet, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
They knew in the middle ages that the black plague was being spread by the rats. Some towns cleaned up the sewers, and the water systems and killed off as many rats as they could find, those towns did relatively well during the plague. There were other towns that were convinced that the plague was sent by God (and maybe it was) and refused to clean or do anything about it, and those towns were wiped from the map.
The plague played an important part in our development as people. In fact bubonic plage is still being spread and caught by people. The results are very minor because most of us that have european ancenstry survived because our genes were stronger...but does that mean the water systems shouldn't have been cleaned by the few towns that did it? Absolutely not.
Absolutely!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Will windows eventually become better as a result of all these attacks?
Currently (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, push the fast-forward button. Microsoft doesn't impr
Circular logic? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ebola is worse than a cold (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to have viruses that just give our computers a cold, in order to build up defenses against the electronic equivalent of Ebola.
Re:Circular logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Well written viruses properly designed for maximum impact, stealth and damage, propagated by terrorists or other people looking to take advantage of economic/information system instability, and
Security holes not noticed or taken seriously being used in a less random way that doesn't broadcast itself in an obvious way - thus giving people with criminal intentions a lot of access to computer power and the ability to use it stealthily.
Viruses force people to notice and take security holes seriously.
What about evolution.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How about Survival of the fittest... in which case MS hasn't been doing so good (and is trying to drag the other OS's down in the process).
Re:What about evolution.. (Score:2)
No, MS might stand for Multiple Sclerosis over the long haul. Had Linus not stolen its mindshare, BSD would likely have been the gnu to ride. Looking at how much you get for the price of an MSDN Universal subscription, it's difficult to argue against the
So by extension... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the point, but while response to a negative may bring about a better positive, not having the negative in the first place would, of course, be much better. But then, it's not a perfect world.
Re:So by extension... (Score:4, Insightful)
In regards to viruses being good for security, I am soon expecting virus writers to plan for the inevitable clean fixes from Symantec and such and, using predictive behavior, ensure that a user can't clean his or her system.
Re:So by extension... (Score:4, Insightful)
not having the negative in the first place would, of course, be much better.
I have to disagree with you. :)
First, in the case of virii and bacteria (forgetting for the moment that 95% of bacteria are beneficial, but anti-bacterial soap doesn't know that), our bodies do get stronger fighting them. Without them, would our bodies be strong enough to fight off other things? How much of our body's overall strength does the ability to fight disease and practice fighting it actually contribute to? Keep in mind that some diseases (most notably cancer) are not caused by either virus or bacteria, yet our centuries of medical research fighting vrii and bacteria have given us a pretty good start to fighting cancer. Without that research? Without that understanding? Well, think: Cancer in the 19th century. :)
In a more general situation, is it in your philosophy that it's possible to appreciate the positive without at least an understanding of the negative? It has been my subjective experience, as well as my objective oberservation of what amounts to a less than perfect statistical universe, that people don't fully appreciate the positive things in their lives without actually experiencing the corresponding negatives. It seems like good lacks definition without evil providing a frame of reference. How can you know how good you have it if it's not even possible to have it any other way?
"virii" is not a word!! (Score:2, Informative)
Viruses IS correct!- Dorlands Medical Dictionary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"virii" is not a word!! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
Re:So by extension... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So by extension... (Score:3, Insightful)
so then your view is that happiness comes from suffering? how very puritanical (in the religious sense) of you. white without black is still white, similarly is happiness truly happiness without negative to contrast it.
Interesting that you call it puritanical. It's also Taoist. It's not so much that happiness comes from suffering; happiness can stand on its own in an objective fashion, but in order to gain subjective appreciation of your happiness, you must have knowledge of and/or experience with sadne
Re:So by extension... (Score:2)
In the same venue, some countries are safer from terrorism than others [kuro5hin.org] and this is not going to change dramatically (unless Iceland manages to piss off Pakistan or Angola somehow).
The situa
Yes (Score:2)
If you have been the victim of a crime, you will increase your security to prevent it from happening again.
The existence of criminal improves security, however this doesn't mean you're in a better overall situation.
summary (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever doesn't crash me... (Score:2)
and serial killers make the world a safer place (Score:2)
Re:and serial killers make the world a safer place (Score:2)
Not too bad of an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
And when someone DOES decide to release a 'Melissa', we're all screwed, because we're all vulnerable.
Re:Not too bad of an idea (Score:2)
So, we get the viruses anyway. I don't see the upside, there will always be new viruses and those are the ones we have to worry about.
All the old viruses don't make us stronger, they just cost time and money to scan for and prevent from spreading.
Re:Not too bad of an idea (Score:2)
Similarly, most successful infections exploit the fact that the infected organism hasn't seen the infecting agent yet.
But, organisms build faster responses and elaborate 'defense in depth' strategies to infections to handle new infections better than they have been handled in the past.
Re:Not too bad of an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Just try to imagine how bad things could be if someone set out to really damage your computer.
Let's pick an example, and say that someone released a virus that created a spoof of the MS Updater. Now people aren't surprised that it's engaging in horrendous uploads and downloads. And their computers could easily download all non-system files to the hacker (he'd better be off-shore, and working through cut-outs!). And it could download *anything* as a system fix. And get people to license it's installation on their system. It might well be that only the initial install would be illegal. Everything else would have been authorized through the EULA. With sufficient cleverness, even the initial installation might be EULA authorized. In that case would any laws be violated? No matter WHAT was done? I'm sure that an EULA could be created that, via obfuscated text, authorized the program to transfer all funds from your bank account to another bank account. And to max out your credit cards. (Fraud? What fraud? It said it clearly right there in the agreement!)
Of course to make the legal agreements binding one would need to provide some tender. Perhaps some png files? Of a sort that the person wouldn't want to be caught with? I understand that those are often exchanged for credit card information. It's just that this time it wouldn't be intentionaly done...perhaps. Certainly he wouldn't know the bill that was coming due.
Wouldn't that be a lot more effective than a simple "deltree C:". And they wouldn't even know that they'd been penetrated until they went to the bank. Even then they wouldn't know *why* their account was drained.
Re:Not too bad of an idea (Score:3, Interesting)
in all reality (Score:5, Insightful)
After every big virus that comes out, I get at least 10 calls saying I think I have this virus. Of course they will pay me, but never will pay for antivirus software though! They think it is a rip-off
Re:in all reality (Score:5, Interesting)
It's simply ridiculous to jump to this conclusion -- if anything, you have to assume that Antivirus Software is a DEAD END in computer evolution, as it helps prevent the survival of the fittest.
Only if the true outcome is safe design, safe code and safe users, have we been successful and have evolved. Even suggesting anti-virus here is like suggesting kevlar vests for bald eagles to protect them against hunters. After a few generations, you'll end up with eagles without feathers on their chests, who NEED the kevlar vest in order to not freeze to death.
The successful business operator isn't the one who makes sure that there's anti-virus software installed on every workstation. He'll be likely to be hit by a virus that the anti-virus software couldn't handle, or who was brought in on a laptop without the latest definitions. That's a dead end, and even though many of them will survive, they don't represent an evolutionary change for the better. Tomorrow, you'll find these armadillos squished flat under the truck wheels they could never predict.
The successful business operator whose business genes will win in the long run is the one who examines what he buys, educates the users, and can find alternatives when something goes wrong. He'll be able to adapt, and is evolving the business into something that can survive even as the environments and predators change. The human being might not have the armor plating of an armadillo, but it adapts and survives.
Regards,
--
*Art
robustness (Score:5, Funny)
No, wait...
That's great and all (Score:2)
Keep them coming.
There are good comparisons, and bad ones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are good comparisons, and bad ones (Score:5, Interesting)
Logical conclusion... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's release weakened forms of viruses into the wild so that "antibodies" can be built up against them!
Ummm... not sure how to define a weakened virus... or antibodies in terms of software (antivirus scanners don't really fit the definition because they don't adapt for the most part).
Ok, on second thought, never mind.
Re:Logical conclusion... (Score:3, Interesting)
When a virus group defaces a website, but doesn't steal its credit card database, that's effectively a weakened form of the virus, that at the very least indicates to the site admin that there is a vulnerability that needs attention. It isn't quite as automated as it ought to be, but if Welchia had made it out before Blaster, that's effectively what we'd have.
Bravo.
-9mm-
Re:Logical conclusion... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think this approach will make you very popular with the internet community however.
I agree (Score:2)
It Makes Sense... (Score:2)
But with constant threat of virus attacks, software developers (hopefully) write patches and fixes for exploits before they happen so that the end user can make their system safe.
Then again, if there WAS nothing harful coming to your computer, (as in, no hacker, no one unauthorized trying to get in, no virii, nothing) would it even NEED to be secure?
Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
Why you should drink tap water (Score:5, Interesting)
She used to have to ensure that there was a correct ammount of flouride in the water. The ammount had to be quite exact, not because a little too much flouride is bad for you but because if you kill off all bacteria then the people didnt become immune to the different strains. The USSR did huge studies on this, varying the flourine levels and getting statistics.
Its the same case with my friends who go to India and would never drink the tap water. They simply are not immune to the local bacteria while the locals are quite happy with it.
Should we drink tapwater, you Commie? (Score:5, Funny)
Mod the parent down. I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Re:Why you should drink tap water (Score:2)
Surprisingly, there a number of European countries that do not flouridate their water.
That aside, I have knew someone that lived on a farm with high levels of some diarhhea inducing organism in their well water. They were essentially immune to it, but they found they had to keep a few gallons of bottled water on hand for guests
Re:Why you should drink tap water (Score:3, Funny)
Ahh, I see you've been to Mexico also.
Umm, you're confused. (Score:2, Informative)
You don't use flouride to kill bacteria in water. It is added as a form of mass medication to prevent tooth decay. Bacteria and other nasties in tap water are usually killed by chlorine or ozone (although there are other ways it can be done, such as using UV). Over chlorination is usually avoided because it makes the water taste bad, is hazardous if you REALLY overdo it, and because it is a waste of money. Too much ozone is hard on pipes. Too much flouride kills people with weak kidneys (well, actually
Another reason virus writers are useful... (Score:2)
Granted, all this manpower and resources could have been put to use for trivial stuff like... say... developing better software and networks, but HEY! we can thank virus writer
I can see his point however... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess in the end he really isn't stating anything world shattering. It just get back to the adage "What ever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger".
So that being the case (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm...
Re:So that being the case (Score:3, Interesting)
The black death wiped out half of europes population, yet it created no natural immunity in the survivors. Today we have a smaller-scale problem of the same kind with HIV.
In windows, some viruses have and do cause changes for the better. I hate windows with a passion, but I can't deny that some things have improved.
Other virus outbreaks just kill a couple thousand machines and that's that.
There's one important difference to biology: When windows gets infected, Linux and other OSes gain
PROOF that Linux is weak! (Score:5, Funny)
makes sense (Score:2)
All in all viruses tend to be better than having a cracker break into your system ; sure some of them wipe your harddrive clean but compared to what could be done that is a blessing .
Flawed argument. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nevertheless, it could be argued that if you want to thank the virus for making the immune system stronger, you could also thank the immune system for making viruses stronger, because that is how competition and natural selection work. If we didn't have viruses, we would have no need for an immune system. So to thank viruses for making us spend time and energy in strengthening our defenses seems a little silly.
Same goes for drug "crime" (Score:2, Insightful)
Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true with a biological system, but it DOES NOT APPLY to electronics. The truth of the matter is, virus writers do nothing but cause havoc, and cost money. So I have a box that's unsecured...so what? That's MY business, NOT yours! Where does it say that you now have the right to fuck with it? Do you somehow think that by buggering it up, you're "helping" me? No, how you help is by leaving it the hell alone! What virus writers and crackers and kiddies do is the moral equivalent of wandering through a neighbourhood and trying everyone's door to see if it's unlocked and then stealing from those whose doors aren't locked. Either that or spraying grafitti or trashing the place. They are not heroes...they aren't "Morpheus" fighting against the "evil machines", they are common thieves and vandals and should be viewed as such and treated accordingly.
Put aside the morality for a second. (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, I disagree that only damage can result. By assuming adverse behaviour, the result is a much stronger network, in which one malicious or malfunctioning node doesn't bring down service for everyone. Better understanding of network dynamics and network protection results from attacks, regardless of how much we hate them.
Re:Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does it say that you now have the right to fuck with it? Do you somehow think that by buggering it up, you're "helping" me? No, how you help is by leaving it the hell alone!
All true; but have you considered that securing your system, like securing your house, is the best method of helping yourself? No, others don't have the right to break into your system; but if you don't care about it enough to at least make it inconvenient for hackers and thieves, don't expect anyone else to shed a tear for you when you get owned.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, that being said, I am not going to make it easy for them, not because of any sort of ethical obbligation, but rather because I don't want to subject myself to the inconvenience.
Here come the invaders! (Score:3, Funny)
Meanwhile, everyone else has patched their systems, and is now joining in on the offensive. I, for one, Welcome our new alien overlords, but you will
make them lethal (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, article /.'d ... (Score:2)
Repeated challenges to your immune system keep it strong, and may render you at least partially immune to related infections. Immunity to one infection may lend immunity to others... Vaccinia infection protects against smallpox, for example. Exposure to some animal forms of rotavirus (common cause of diarrhea in infants... and adults. The immunity wanes la
Flawed logic... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess the point is that immediate exploitation of every defect means that, in theory, a devastating attack that exploits everything at once is not possible. But I would say that the frequent, *extremely* impactful exploitation of 'minor' flaws is far more damaging than a rare, totally devastating blow in terms of cost.
Or else he could be saying our culture is being trained in the ways of viruses so that the next unsuspecting invading alien race comes to attack, we can whip out a Powerbook and screw them over because their culture never dealt with viruses and worms...suckers.
Weak/Strong Multidimensional (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like loaded terminology, much like Nietzsche.
Sure, viri make the population develop "strength", as measured by resistance to attack, but there's reasonable doubt whether your killing off "weaker" portions of society is a good thing; some of the "weak" members of society might well have contributed a great "strength" in a different area.
I know lots of computer nerds with "weak" constitutions that wouldn't have stood much of a chance against bubonic plague, but they're arguably quite strong when it comes to quickly fixing the latest computer virus infestation.
If it weren't for viruses and blackhats... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've reluctantly come to appreciate the role that noisy blackhats and virus authors play in getting organisations to improve their information security infrastructure. If it weren't for them, I feel there would be a thriving underground economy of industrial espionage and personal information theft because it would be so easy. At least with the constant pressure applied by viruses and blackhats, the most gaping security vulnerabilities tend to get fixed, sooner or later (even if a few organisations end up being made examples to the rest).
Personally, I don't really care about catching virus authors and blackhats. I just care about keeping them out of the machines and networks I've been paid to care about.
--
Well, that's bloody stupid, isn't it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bring on the pop-philosophy (Score:2, Funny)
Circular reasoning (Score:2)
Or from another perspective, if there were no viruses, our immune systems would grow weak through disuse. We wouldn't be able to fend off viruses. But since there aren't any viruses to begin with... you get the idea.
Yeah, right. (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, (Score:2)
well, if we didn't have infections why would we need immunity?
what kind of BS is this (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years back I did an interview with a virus writing group called shadowvx
While all the rage is on viruses and backdoors, would you care to explanation as to what exactly it is your members do? One not too familiar with the scene would think most virus coders are evil pricks out to rm -Rf /* the world. Whats your guys description of the
virii field?
Well, many virus coders do not agree to destructive payloads now. The idea of a virus is to spread. What is the use of a virus that infects a computer and formats it's hdd? In effect it is killing itself... not the best idea if it wants to spread no?
With regards to what ShadowvX members do, we code viruses that incorporate new or existing virus techniques. We try to code viruses with things like ICQ spreading or virus networks. Only a few of our codes have made it into the wild, but they had to be released. Ya know, new techniques, lets see how far up the AV "Dangerous" list we can get :] We make it a policy though that no code gets released unless all members agree
it should. And we ain't no evil pricks either... we are like you guys, doing what we do
to prove that computers are too relied upon these days...
Back Orifice, Netbus, Melissa, Tuxissa, ILOVEYOU, were plain and simply maliciously coded virii, we know some virii coders assist companies like Symantec, AVP, etc, whats your outlook on the creators of these program like Melissa, etc.?
Well, with Melissa it certainly showed MS a few things. Most of the code that gets released are to show or exploit vulnerabilities in software or hardware.. it just seems to only happen with MS software.
My view on these types of coders is no different from how I view other virus coders. They want to create something and show that humans rely too much on computers now a days.
rest of interview [antioffline.com]
Anyway, my thoughts for one are, wouldn't someone who works for an antivirus company have a biased opinion being that the more people create a virus, the more money his company would make? Give me a break. Viruses are nothing more than annoyances which serve no purpose whatsoever, no matter how you want to look at it. Developers of software should take more precautions when releasing code to ensure these viruses dont become epidemics like SobigF [politrix.org] was, knocking off the electric grid. For anyone to claim that a virus is good coming from a corporation, he deserves to be canned. The statement he made about being infected to be cured is irresponsible. Should someone die because some medical equipment malfunctioned due to some power outtage that was cause by a virus for the sake of find an antidote? I think not.
But if there were no worms (Score:2, Funny)
And if a server boots in the forest, does it beep?
Getting Philosophical. (Score:2)
This could be argued by saying that in the absence of predators, there would be no need for prey to have a defense. Simple. But equally as stupid.
In computer terms, this translates to us needing security because of those that would exploit the lack of it. To say that security is better because of better criminals is stating the moronic obvious.
People will rise or fall to your level of expectations. Somethi
weaker what? (Score:2)
Forget the ecosystem. Without virii, I'd have a much weaker wallet. People refuse to keep their systems up to date. When they pay the price, they do it figuratively and literally... To the tune of $95/hour.
DB connection failed (). (Score:2)
Or it eliminates the weak...
Broken analogy (Score:2)
hmmm.... (Score:2)
So...without virus writers, our computers would weaker, easier to infect by virus writers? hmmm.
In other news, breathing is good for you.
pointless logic exercise (Score:2)
this statement is only valid if one assumes that a virus -will- eventually exist. and then, it is suggesting that the quantity of past viruses survived, should imply higher probability of survival in the face of this 'new' virus.
but it is fairly plain to see that each successive measure to defend ourselves is only a successful defense aga
Text (Score:2, Informative)
SyS64738
08/25/2003
The title is obviously a provocation. I am considered a balanced personality but sometimes, I like to stretch things to the extreme and to provoke reactions. This article is one of my rare attempts to provoke you... or not?
Today, after the alarm caused by the fast diffusion of the Sobig virus, we are all talking about the reasons why virus writers are coding more and more viruses.
"They should stop, somebody stop them!" I he
Two things. (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that viruses could be doing a lot more evil, yet they aren't.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that the 'virus-scanning companies are really the ones behind these pussy-ass viruses.
Since none of them do any real damage, it could be argued that antivirus companies create them, distribute them, then 'convieniently' have a fix ready. To cover their tracks, all viruses are 'hobbled' in function - if a virus happens to be traced back to them, AV companies can say it was a 'proof of concept' that was accidentally released.
To those who say that viruses are an unnecessary evil, I submit that if there were no viruses, that one would be 'accidentally' created eventually by self modifying code that will be used in more and more devices. With computer power increasing at its current rate, I predict that (rather, I hope that) software will be available to infer what the 'writer' wants and go ahead and create the code via genetic algorythims.
At some point, genetic coding would create something self-replicating and inadvertently release it to an fertile playground.
Ultimately, it comes down to human nature. We have viruses because we have people. For profit, or for glory - humans create these viruses. Just like humans, they aint goin nowhere.
insult to injury (Score:3, Informative)
This is definitely an outrageous statement coming from a professional. Consider that viruses that humans get as opposed to computer viruses, are not created. Now we all know that some have been created, but not to the extent of computer viruses. How responsible would it be for the Center for Disease Control to create viruses unleash them with the monicker "Hey we did it for your immune system. Is this guy insane. Remember that people rely on electricity, so stop to think about all of the emergency rooms that had no power. Stop to think about surgeons in the middle of surgery who had power zapped on them due to a virus.
ZH: So you are saying that virus writers have their own role in the Internet system.
SDF: Absolutely.
This leads me to believe that some of these scientist create viruses and unleash them to the general public. Anytime I see this guy's name mentioned anywhere near the word government I would hope he is not under contract with them in any shape fashion or form for his lack of ethics.
To think virus writers have a purpose is the most ludicrous statement I've heard to date. Does this moron have a clue as to how much money companies spend in downtime due to some e-diots writing shit nobody wants on their systems. Does this e-diot have any idea how much time admins have to spend fixing machines, not to mention software developers working double time for a fix. What the hell is the net coming to?
old topic (Score:3, Insightful)
That's very true (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a baby and a kid, my parents let me walk on the floor naked, put things in my mouth and all things that most parents shriek at. But the consequence is that my immunodefensive system got extremely strong very soon, so now I don't have any problems. In kindergarten and school I would drive teachers mad because I'd play in the rain with only a shirt on, and they'd call my mom and she'd simply reply "Well, does he get sick?
I know it sounds like I'm recounting all of this just to brag, but it's actually to prove a point. Most people will cover up with a bunch of sweaters (especially their children) whenever it's a bit cold, or it rains. We're not made of sugar! The rain won't melt us! It's good to be a little exposed to the Bad Things of this world, because it's the only way we can fight them when we get really exposed.
Re:That's very true (Score:4, Informative)
One proposed explanation for the rising incidence of asthma is that parents don't let their kids do this so much anymore (or they clean their floors with disinfectants). The notion is that your immune system is evolved to deal with a certain level of attack. If it doesn't find enough invaders, it "figures" that it just isn't trying hard enough, and cranks up the volume until it starts going crazy over every mite and speck of pollen.
This is why we won in Independence Day (Score:3, Funny)
Problem with annalogies (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the sort of flawed logic that arises from the use of analogies. I mean you can't define one system by using facts from another system and expect it to be completely accurate, they are different systems, if they were the same system you wouldn't need to use analogies; they'd be the same...
A computer virus is not naturally occurring so it should not be compared to something that is naturally occurring.
So, with that said, here is my analogy on why this is flawed. "Hey Biff I have a truck to help you move". Ned shows up with a car, Biff says, "Where is your truck?" Ned says "a car is like a truck"
I also must disagree with the good doctor. "SDF: Computer viruses are exactly like the normal viruses." They are not exactly alike, they may have similar characteristics but they are not exactly alike. I am a security administrator for a Fortune 500 company, that does not qualify me to publish a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association, so when they come to interview me, which I am sure they will, about this seasons flu, I will decline.
When was the last truly evil virus? (Score:3, Interesting)
What was the last virus that really did exploit a serious security hole to the worse possible extent? SQL Slammer maybe? I would imagine that any virus that has access to run a process on a remote machine with administrative rights could do some real, permanent damage (e.g. delete all system files that don't happen to be in use at the time).
Why do virus writers write malicious viruses that aren't *that* malicious (or at least as much as they could be)? I mean, some of those lately are set to expire! Do they hope that if they get caught, the judge will go easier on them since it "wasn't really that bad"?
French and Spanish? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmm hmm. And we good old British WASPs played no role in that at all, eh?
I'm not saying that the French and the Spanish did nothing. But the spread of smallpox among t North American plains Indians was almost wholly the fault (even conscious in some cases) of the English-speaking settlers coming from the east.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the convenient omission of the now-dominant national group kind of pissed me off.
Re:I would like to see more things like this... (Score:2)
Why CBN options in polls are amusing.
"No matter how much money Bruce [Springsteen] gives to charity, I still say he's one of the tightest men I've ever known." - David Sedaris.
Re:Umm, no. (Score:2)
Hell, look at the original sendmail worm. It was a research project that was never supposed to get out of the lab. Oops.
No, not a perfect example, but the reality is that code has bugs. A bug in some networking software could wreck havok on a completely unprotected network (and, in fact, when a current day worm gets inside of a company that hasn't kept up with patches -- because those systems are supposed
Uh, yes (Score:4, Informative)
Computers have varying levels of protection: We, administrators, play the role of t-cells, white blood cells, and macrophages.
So a computer 'ecosystem' is like a lan or a network; or even the internet. So the immune response? Train the users not to click attachments. Install firewalls. Install filters. Install anti-virus programs. Install patches.
Don't forget that systems aren't static! Windows Update, patches, new holes, etc, are 'discovered' and 'sealed' in organic, not deterministic, fashion. Likewise as new systems are brought into the network, they will/should have greater protection, according to patches, newer users with 'learned' behavior from prior attacks, and newer software.
You can't treat a computer network separate from the users, else you can't take into account trojans!
Re:Lame Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that in either case it is either flaws in the origional design or new technology (bio or otherwise) which leave the "host" open to an attack.
--J