🚀 go-pugleaf

In all of this discussion on proliferating information about viruses, it seems
that the proponents of free exchange of information argue that it is impossible
to keep the information from those who want to make viruses, while that
information may be helpful to prevent their spread.  I would contend that 
neither statement is true.  Sure, anyone who is technically minded can find
the information in the manuals, but that is still a far cry from actually
finding source code listings in a magazine.  When source code is distributed,
anyone with an assembler can make minor modifications to the code that will
make the "mutant" virus undetectible by current virus detection programs. This
requires neither very much work nor much understaning of the workings of
viruses.  Thus, while some people will always be able to make new viruses,
it is possible to minimize that by restricting discussion.  On the other hand,
I seriously doubt that publishing source codes is very useful for preventing
the spread of viruses.  If a source code is published, then it already has
been disassembled and analyzed, and a method of detecting and removing it has
been found.  All that needs to be spread is that method, or better yet, PD
programs to do the job, but not the actual source code for the viruses.  
In short, I believe that the inevitable proliferation of mutants completely
outweighs the minimal advantages of publishing source codes.  Best to keep
the discussion to how to protect against viruses -- not how to make them.

Just thought I'd put my two-cents in.
Ken Clubok, Clubok@husc4.bitnet