🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15976@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
>Fred Hollander writes:
> 
>>By publishing known methods used by computer viruses, people can write
>>software to detect, kill or prevent viruses.
>
> *What* people...?   You..?  Me...?   Maybe..
> 
>What about the guy trying to run a small office on a PC, who doesn't even
>know what a "compiler" is, and doesn't want to...?
> 
>What about a teacher keeping grades and lesson plans, to whom "boot sector"
>means about as much as "dlch hksptl"..?
> 
>None of this "Virus" information is likely to enable THEM to write their
>own protection...  indeed, it's hardly likely that it will even REACH
>them...     AND...    the danger is, they may not even be  ABLE  to obtain
>"virus killers", or perhaps even know they're available...

Neither will they write the next virus!

>The analogy of protecting against burglers just doesn't work..  ANYONE
>can go to the store and buy a deadbolt lock, and probably install it
>successfully...

The analogy is more appropriate than that.  Someone can develop a "deadbolt"
that prevents a virus from infecting a Mac and distribute the virus through
BBS's, user groups and networks.

>Telling someone how to break into a house MAY enable them to more efficiently
>protect their own house, but it's NOT likely that broadcasting information
>about how viruses work will help the LARGE MAJORITY of computer users...
> 
>It's easy to figure out how to break into a house...  writing a virus will
>need detailed information, all distilled down into a neat package... like
>these postings..

Some of the viruses have used extremely simple methods.  I'll bet at least
90% of the hackers on this net could have written one if they wanted to.

>BobR

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
hollander@ti.com

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.