🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11179@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:
>No, your articles don't tell "how to write a virus" in the sense of providing
>sample source code, but they certainly present a clear blueprint. You go into
>great detail about how viruses can work, where they need to go, how they
>overcome obstacles and protections, etc., to the point of naming specific
>disk sectors. 
>
>You state that a non-programmer won't get anything out of your article, and
>that a programmer can easily find this information in "any good computer
>book." If that's the case, why post it in the first place? Gimme a break.
>
>Your articles remind me of a Reader's Digest article I saw some time back
>on "How to Protect Your House From Burglars." It was the best article on
>"How to burglarize a house" I'd ever seen.
>

These points are well taken, but just to stimulate the debate, this is from 
the official statement by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR) on the Internet virus :

"An effective way to correct known security flaws is to publish descriptions
of the flaws so that they may be corrected.  We therefore view the efforts to
conceal technical descriptions of the recent virus as shortsighted."

from the Winter 89 CPSR Newsletter

The statement goes on to give a bibliography of both technical and non-
technical articles about the Internet virus.

One thing to remember is that we Americans allow in our culture plays, 
movies, TV shows, etc. that not only show how, but also glorify robbing
banks, murder, sex, etc.  It's the old argument about incitement versus
freedom of speech.  Certainly no one will accuse "Virus 101" of glorifying
the writing of viruses (as does John Brunner's 'Shockwave Rider' or William
Gibson's 'Neuromancer") - it reads more like a PBS documentary.

Should we censor it?

What does the net think?

Rich Fozzard