🚀 go-pugleaf

WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.ARPA writes:
> 1. The amount of damage to data and availability done by viruses to date
> has been less than users do to themselves by error every day.

	OK, OK.  True enough, though we don't often like to be reminded of
	this.

> 4. Viruses and rumors of viruses have the potential to destroy society's
> already fragile trust in our ability to get computers to do that which
> we intend while avoiding unintended adverse consequences.

	This is the most worrying aspect of virus/trojan/worm infections.
	We have a population which has no intrinsic immune system which
	leaves itself open to such attack.  Vectors now consist of
	communications networks (BBS and other means) as well as physical
	media.  Since we are moving towards a networked future we will
	need immune systems in our computers-  society (all of us) are
	currently subject to these terrorist acts (like the tylenol
	scare).  Remember-  any linchpin/choke point in technology, be
	it transportation, food delivery, water supply, communications
	is subject to interruption by killers.  Set some of these loose
	in a Hospital and the virus writer is _at least_ as dangerous
	as the individual who slips cyanide into food and drug products.

> 5. We learn from the biological analogy that viruses are self-limiting.

	We also learn that when the population is large enough for the
	entity to take advantage of, an entity will attempt to take
	hold.  Once we had standard PC's (and Macs, Amigas, etc) we
	then had a "fixed" cellular mechanism to subvert.  S-100 systems
	which lacked such standardization were not subject;  even the
	"standard" S-100 systems did not constitute a large enough
	population to invite attack...

> Clinically, if you catch a cold, you will either get over it, or you
> will die.  Epidemiologically, a virus in a limited population
> will either make its hosts immune, or destroy the population.  Even in
> open population, a virus must have a long incubation period and slow
> replication in order to be successful (that is, replicate and spread).

	Point taken.  A virus, since it _does_ act in the system as
	non-invasively as possible (beyond spreading its "genetic code"
	wherever possible) will be fairly successful.  Subtlety pays
	off.  Of course, these viruses are much like the HIV will eventually
	kill the host...

- --
 John R. Campbell	...!uunet!lgnp1!penrij!soup	  (soup@penrij.LS.COM)
		 "In /dev/null no one can hear you scream"