🚀 go-pugleaf

>From:    bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)

>This is a result of the misunderstanding of the definitions. I know at
>least three anti-virus packages, which are "benevolent viruses",
>according to Dr. Cohen's definition. The supervisor installs them on
>the LAN server -once- and each time a user logs in, the package
>automatically installs (or updates) itself on the user's workstation.
>Therefore, the package propagates from the server to the workstations
>like a virus (or like a worm, if we want to be precise).

The interesting fact is that as far as I know this is a concept that
was originally discussed here on V-L with explicit specification two
years ago (before Fred's contest in fact - Anthony ?).

>There's nothing bad in the above...Therefore, there are no ethical problems 
>involved - - if you don't like that policy, don't use that LAN.

Exactly. The same argument may be used about privacy concerns and ANI/
Caller-ID dial-up logging.

				Warmly,
					Padgett


 Just as a final final note, for those who do not wish to bother
 with DEBUG to determine which DOS 5.00 CHKDSK.EXE you have and
 do not trust dates, the following PKZIP CRC-32 and VALIDATE
 results are given:

 PKUNZIP (R)    FAST!    Extract Utility    Version 1.1    03-15-90

 Length    Date    Time   CRC-32    Name
 ------    ----    ----   ------    ----
  16200  04-09-91  05:00  8e2aba28  CHKDSK.EXE  (dangerous)
  16200  11-11-91  05:00  59dbaefb  CHKDSK.EXE  (with "bug fix")

McAfee Validate 0.3 numbers:

          File Name:  chkdsk.exe
               Size:  16,200
               Date:  11-11-1991
File Authentication:
     Check Method 1 - 19D8
     Check Method 2 - 16E2

"Most version numbers have the same relation to reality as the Chevrolet
 horsepower figures that put a '67 Z-28 @ 290 and a '69 L-88 at 430" 
        (and are probably produced by the same people).