Article View: comp.virus
Article #5184Universal virus detector / Biological analogy
From: Dr. A. Wood
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1990 16:08
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1990 16:08
45 lines
3019 bytes
3019 bytes
There has been much rhubarbiage about the possibility of writing a
program which will detect <all> viruses in incoming programs, not only
a set list of viruses that it has been told about. I suspect that this
is partly motivated by trying to achieve the efficiency of biological
immune systems - there have been a few 'biological analogy' articles
in Virus-L before. This analogy will not work - biological immune
systems are set up in a different way.
Long before birth, all possible antibody-producing cell types appear
in the body. As in the womb before birth in the normal case, no
foreign matter can get in, everything in the fetus is native and
belongs. And, at that stage, every antibody-producing cell that loses
its antibody, dies, for it must have lost its antibody by an
auto-immume reaction. Thus all auto-immune antibody-producing cell
lines are eliminated. Time passes and the baby is born. Then, any
antibody-producing cell that loses its antibody must have lost it to
some foreign matter. So it multiplies, and its descendants produce
much antibody to combat the invader. After birth, nothing else gets
unopposed into the body.
The only way to imitate this in computers is to have an immune program
which knows every program which will be run on that computer, and
rejects all strange programs. No good! So, is there any point in this
email-space-wasting discussion continuing? Bodies have a permitted
list and exclude all others; computers have a forbidden list and admit
all others. To a computer, a new virus is merely a new program, and
some human has to find that it is harmful and then add it to the
forbidden list.
Also, any two bodies' cells (except identical twins) have different
immunotypes, and attempted grafting fails, thus any bacterium that
learns to masquerade as a legal cell of body A, is rejected on trying
to invade body B. The computer analogy of this would be for each
individual microcomputer's copy of each authorized program to be
different.
The only thing that I can suggest is for microcomputer designers to
start using the mainframe technique of preventing programs running
under ordinary mode from writing to system areas, and for only the
suppliers of the computer to be allowed to write system programs which
run under everything-permitted mode. That will exclude damaging
viruses, but will still allow the sort of virus that merely multiplies
and wastes time and storage space.
{A.Appleyard} (email: APPLEYARD@UK.AC.UMIST), Fri, 09 Feb 90 15:38:12 GMT
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<0004.9002121648.AA15294@ge.sei.cmu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!polyslo!vlsi3b15!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvwShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!polyslo!vlsi3b15!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: XPUM01@prime-a.central-services.umist.ac.uk (Dr. A. Wood) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Universal virus detector / Biological analogy Message-ID: <0004.9002121648.AA15294@ge.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 9 Feb 90 16:08:24 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> Lines: 45 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu