NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8612

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 1.8 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!panix!rpowers
From: [e-mail] (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:28:53 GMT
Lines: 26

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Powers) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>>But that's just what the BCV does, in one description.  It prompts the user
>>>for an action (suicide, install marker file, etc).  If the BCV existed,
>>>how long do you think it would be before someone wrote a copy-cat virus
>>>that looked for the same marker file, performed the same compression, and
>>>at some later date, wiped the disk clean?
>>
>>But it wouldn't be the same BCV.  You could check for alterations the
>>same way you use a checksum to check the integrity of existing files.
>>The BCV does not change the extent to which you are vulnerable to
>>"bad" virii.  If you are not taking precautions against unwanted
>>virii, you will be vulnerable.  BCV or not.

>If the BCV is present on your system, and you did not install it yourself,

>                       YOU ARE VULNERABLE!

If you did not install it yourself then it dies for lack of marker.
If someone else installed it purposefully, without your knowledge
and/or permission, then said person is the problem.  Not the BCV!
--
)                    )  I am more than this...  )               )
) [e-mail]  )                          )   Apathy...   )
)                    )      Continue...?        )               )