Slashdot Mirror
Why Virus Writers are Useful
man_of_mr_e writes "Security site Zone-h.org has an interview with Professor Samuel D. Forrester, one of the worlds leading immunologists. In this interview he asserts that immunity is built by infection, and without it you would have a much weaker ecosystem. "
Plus, it REALLY helps the bottom line of Symantec and McAfee.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
How about Survival of the fittest... in which case MS hasn't been doing so good (and is trying to drag the other OS's down in the process).
...criminals are useful because of the increase in security?
;)
I understand the point, but while response to a negative may bring about a better positive, not having the negative in the first place would, of course, be much better. But then, it's not a perfect world.
libertarianswag.com
And when someone DOES decide to release a 'Melissa', we're all screwed, because we're all vulnerable.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I view them as job security (so does he I am sure).
After every big virus that comes out, I get at least 10 calls saying I think I have this virus. Of course they will pay me, but never will pay for antivirus software though! They think it is a rip-off
Comparing computer viruses to the biological sort is a BAD one. Firstly, you have to make a distinction between worms and viruses and such. Secondly, we don't infect new computers with lesser versions of MBLASTER, we patch the vulnerablilty.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
yes, he is. i don't understand why this is even news, we don't need a professor telling us that the best way to make systems more secure is to learn of the insecure parts of the system. If a virus doesn't exploit an insecurity, a hacker will; and often the results of that are far, far worse.
Nice troll...even managed to get it posted as a Slashdot article!
That may be true with a biological system, but it DOES NOT APPLY to electronics. The truth of the matter is, virus writers do nothing but cause havoc, and cost money. So I have a box that's unsecured...so what? That's MY business, NOT yours! Where does it say that you now have the right to fuck with it? Do you somehow think that by buggering it up, you're "helping" me? No, how you help is by leaving it the hell alone! What virus writers and crackers and kiddies do is the moral equivalent of wandering through a neighbourhood and trying everyone's door to see if it's unlocked and then stealing from those whose doors aren't locked. Either that or spraying grafitti or trashing the place. They are not heroes...they aren't "Morpheus" fighting against the "evil machines", they are common thieves and vandals and should be viewed as such and treated accordingly.
You're using her as bait, Master!
I've reluctantly come to appreciate the role that noisy blackhats and virus authors play in getting organisations to improve their information security infrastructure. If it weren't for them, I feel there would be a thriving underground economy of industrial espionage and personal information theft because it would be so easy. At least with the constant pressure applied by viruses and blackhats, the most gaping security vulnerabilities tend to get fixed, sooner or later (even if a few organisations end up being made examples to the rest).
Personally, I don't really care about catching virus authors and blackhats. I just care about keeping them out of the machines and networks I've been paid to care about.
--
We need to have viruses that just give our computers a cold, in order to build up defenses against the electronic equivalent of Ebola.
Will I retire or break 10K?
- Well written viruses properly designed for maximum impact, stealth and damage, propagated by terrorists or other people looking to take advantage of economic/information system instability, and
Security holes not noticed or taken seriously being used in a less random way that doesn't broadcast itself in an obvious way - thus giving people with criminal intentions a lot of access to computer power and the ability to use it stealthily.
Viruses force people to notice and take security holes seriously.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I think we can all agree that cracking is immoral. But put that aside for a second. The fact that cracking is simply possible means that someone will probably do it. Leaving your box open for attacks, which could in turn compromise other machines, simply because you're depending on the moral behaviour of someone else, is irresponsible.
Furthermore, I disagree that only damage can result. By assuming adverse behaviour, the result is a much stronger network, in which one malicious or malfunctioning node doesn't bring down service for everyone. Better understanding of network dynamics and network protection results from attacks, regardless of how much we hate them.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
there is nothing new about this idea; it's bean around for years. taken out of context, however, it leads people to the erroneous conclusion that if a bunch of virii are let loose on the net, all the systems that survive will somhow improve. to extend the bio-system analogy, that would be like dropping anthrax in time-square, figuring that whoever made it out would be better equipped to survive an attack. in reality, however, bio-systems are strengthened through either eons of evolution, or limited exposure to weakened strains. to extend this analogy, having a bunch of OS developers sitting in an isolated area studying the effects of a virus on a discreete system, then applying what was learned to the next itteration would help. thinking that letting worms loose to imporve the net as a whole is pure hooey.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
" '..."They should stop, somebody stop them!" I hear all the time but... is this right?' "
Of course it's right. Just because the virus writers do play a role in the "ecosystem" of the Internet, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
They knew in the middle ages that the black plague was being spread by the rats. Some towns cleaned up the sewers, and the water systems and killed off as many rats as they could find, those towns did relatively well during the plague. There were other towns that were convinced that the plague was sent by God (and maybe it was) and refused to clean or do anything about it, and those towns were wiped from the map.
The plague played an important part in our development as people. In fact bubonic plage is still being spread and caught by people. The results are very minor because most of us that have european ancenstry survived because our genes were stronger...but does that mean the water systems shouldn't have been cleaned by the few towns that did it? Absolutely not.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Yes, but most people go to the Doctor and get some sort of "3rd party" shot or pill. Really, what's the differece.
I think that in either case it is either flaws in the origional design or new technology (bio or otherwise) which leave the "host" open to an attack.
--J
-- [Sig] Rome did not create a great empire by negotiation; They did it by killing everyone who opposed them.
I reject the notion that my inaction would make me bear any sort of responsibility for someone else's criminal actions. That's like saying a woman who dresses a certain way deserves to get raped.
Of course, that being said, I am not going to make it easy for them, not because of any sort of ethical obbligation, but rather because I don't want to subject myself to the inconvenience.
You're using her as bait, Master!