🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14940@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
}I agree that this is a sensitive matter...  the  *ONLY*  time I ever tried
}to surpress any Topic of discussion on GEnie was when the discussion of 
}"Trojan Horses" got too close to discussing  ACTUAL  methods of destructive
}programming..  (the term "virus" hadn't yet entered into things..)

}Where do you draw the line...?   Are we better prepared if we see what most
}destructive programs look like..?  Or...  can we possibly avoid future
}problems by surpressing this information now..?
} 
}I'd like to see the source code for these "viruses", but who's to believe
}that *I* won't use them destructively...?

A point I haven't seen mentioned in any of these discussions:

All of the necessary information for constructing a virus can be found in
any advanced text on MS-DOS features and programming.  Of course, it isn't
all conveniently gathered in a chapter titled "Virus Construction", but
the data is there for anyone sufficiently knowledgeable and interested in
finding and using it.

In light of the above, the idea that you can prevent the spread of viri by
not discussing them in public is ludicrous.  You can't keep the
information out of the hands of the bad guys.  The best you can do is
inform the good guys and help them devise methods to protect themselves.
To develop such methods, you have to know what you're up against.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe