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. "
Maybe we should follow things to it's logical conclusion and fully mimic biological workings...
Let's release weakened forms of viruses into the wild so that "antibodies" can be built up against them!
Ummm... not sure how to define a weakened virus... or antibodies in terms of software (antivirus scanners don't really fit the definition because they don't adapt for the most part).
Ok, on second thought, never mind.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
So if I genetically engineer a real virus that wipes out half the population of New York, I guess my lawyer will have a defense now... "Honest, your honor, he was just trying to beef up everyone's immune system..." Give me a break. Better yet, give me a G5. At least I can laugh at the contstant stream of infected exe's, scr's and the like that constantly flood my inbox. Doesn't anyone have a constructive hobby anymore?
My mother used to work as a water health scientist in Poland (It was just a cover job for working in the anti-biological warfare division but thats another story).
She used to have to ensure that there was a correct ammount of flouride in the water. The ammount had to be quite exact, not because a little too much flouride is bad for you but because if you kill off all bacteria then the people didnt become immune to the different strains. The USSR did huge studies on this, varying the flourine levels and getting statistics.
Its the same case with my friends who go to India and would never drink the tap water. They simply are not immune to the local bacteria while the locals are quite happy with it.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
The author admits the title is a provocation, so we can cut him a little slack there.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that if you want to thank the virus for making the immune system stronger, you could also thank the immune system for making viruses stronger, because that is how competition and natural selection work. If we didn't have viruses, we would have no need for an immune system. So to thank viruses for making us spend time and energy in strengthening our defenses seems a little silly.
In the biological world, if you catch a bad virus and don't defend against it, it will kill you. In the computer world their are idiots who just think their computer is acting weird or getting slow so they scrap it, filling landfills, and buy a new one, lining Microsoft's pockets. If they could invent a computer virus that weeded out idiots who don't patch their systems permanently, it might help make computers stronger.
Viruses force the software to be made more secure. If we were already immune then the virus would never have been written, so yes in some respect, the community as a whole benefits from publicised viruses in the long term while those infected are negatively affected in the short term.
It's the opposite of security through obscurity -- the security issue is forced into public awareness and the software company is forced to fix it. Obviously this line of argument doesn't affect the fact that people are lazy and won't patch their systems.
-- Azaroth
Saying that if no attacks ever occured, then we would be vunerable is kinda silly. Of course it is true. It's like saying it is bad that elephants aren't falling regularly out of the sky, because it makes it so we are totally unprepared for the situation. Making a world without virus attacks automatically includes the consequence that virus attacks are not to be worried about.
I guess the point is that immediate exploitation of every defect means that, in theory, a devastating attack that exploits everything at once is not possible. But I would say that the frequent, *extremely* impactful exploitation of 'minor' flaws is far more damaging than a rare, totally devastating blow in terms of cost.
Or else he could be saying our culture is being trained in the ways of viruses so that the next unsuspecting invading alien race comes to attack, we can whip out a Powerbook and screw them over because their culture never dealt with viruses and worms...suckers.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sounds like loaded terminology, much like Nietzsche.
Sure, viri make the population develop "strength", as measured by resistance to attack, but there's reasonable doubt whether your killing off "weaker" portions of society is a good thing; some of the "weak" members of society might well have contributed a great "strength" in a different area.
I know lots of computer nerds with "weak" constitutions that wouldn't have stood much of a chance against bubonic plague, but they're arguably quite strong when it comes to quickly fixing the latest computer virus infestation.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
A few years back I did an interview with a virus writing group called shadowvx
While all the rage is on viruses and backdoors, would you care to explanation as to what exactly it is your members do? One not too familiar with the scene would think most virus coders are evil pricks out to rm -Rf /* the world. Whats your guys description of the
virii field?
Well, many virus coders do not agree to destructive payloads now. The idea of a virus is to spread. What is the use of a virus that infects a computer and formats it's hdd? In effect it is killing itself... not the best idea if it wants to spread no?
With regards to what ShadowvX members do, we code viruses that incorporate new or existing virus techniques. We try to code viruses with things like ICQ spreading or virus networks. Only a few of our codes have made it into the wild, but they had to be released. Ya know, new techniques, lets see how far up the AV "Dangerous" list we can get :] We make it a policy though that no code gets released unless all members agree
it should. And we ain't no evil pricks either... we are like you guys, doing what we do
to prove that computers are too relied upon these days...
Back Orifice, Netbus, Melissa, Tuxissa, ILOVEYOU, were plain and simply maliciously coded virii, we know some virii coders assist companies like Symantec, AVP, etc, whats your outlook on the creators of these program like Melissa, etc.?
Well, with Melissa it certainly showed MS a few things. Most of the code that gets released are to show or exploit vulnerabilities in software or hardware.. it just seems to only happen with MS software.
My view on these types of coders is no different from how I view other virus coders. They want to create something and show that humans rely too much on computers now a days.
rest of interview
Anyway, my thoughts for one are, wouldn't someone who works for an antivirus company have a biased opinion being that the more people create a virus, the more money his company would make? Give me a break. Viruses are nothing more than annoyances which serve no purpose whatsoever, no matter how you want to look at it. Developers of software should take more precautions when releasing code to ensure these viruses dont become epidemics like SobigF was, knocking off the electric grid. For anyone to claim that a virus is good coming from a corporation, he deserves to be canned. The statement he made about being infected to be cured is irresponsible. Should someone die because some medical equipment malfunctioned due to some power outtage that was cause by a virus for the sake of find an antidote? I think not.
MoFscker
Ahh, therein lies the point! Microsoft has been patching, that's like evolution or as this guy would say, becoming immune, producing antibodies, this sort of thing. Therefore, you can't really call them weak, susceptable to attack? Yes, but, they fix the problems! They are very "fit", I mean, us humans are susceptable to disease, but we also produce antibodies (like patches for an OS), I certainly wouldn't say we are a weak species.
As you have seen MSBLASTER is the lesser version of WELCHIA or whatever worse worms could have came out exploiting RPC/DCOM. MSBLASTER was a weaker wor, because it advertised itself by rebooting the infected host, so people know they have caught on and get patched (i.e. immunized) before WELCHIA or other variants hit, those which are stronger and do not reboot the infected hosts, able to propogate better to other hosts without the host noticing anything.
It seems to me that viruses could be doing a lot more evil, yet they aren't.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that the 'virus-scanning companies are really the ones behind these pussy-ass viruses.
Since none of them do any real damage, it could be argued that antivirus companies create them, distribute them, then 'convieniently' have a fix ready. To cover their tracks, all viruses are 'hobbled' in function - if a virus happens to be traced back to them, AV companies can say it was a 'proof of concept' that was accidentally released.
To those who say that viruses are an unnecessary evil, I submit that if there were no viruses, that one would be 'accidentally' created eventually by self modifying code that will be used in more and more devices. With computer power increasing at its current rate, I predict that (rather, I hope that) software will be available to infer what the 'writer' wants and go ahead and create the code via genetic algorythims.
At some point, genetic coding would create something self-replicating and inadvertently release it to an fertile playground.
Ultimately, it comes down to human nature. We have viruses because we have people. For profit, or for glory - humans create these viruses. Just like humans, they aint goin nowhere.
While in some measure your statement has validity, it doesn't quite get the point.
In the creation of antibodies and other receptors in the immune system, cells literally rearrange their chromosomal DNA to create antibodies with different specificities. That means each cell has a different potential specificity. When the body gets exposed to a new pathogen, it probably has one or two cells that will make an antibody that can respond to it. If it does, it only has a very few cells that make appropriate antibodies -- in effect, at the moment of exposure, the body has no immunity, only the potential for immunity. Those cells have to be stimulated to reproduce and develop into specialized antibody factories before the body has anything sufficient to fight the infection. The immunity gets created based on existing potential.
Immunology works as a metaphor. The analogy in this case is the following:
A virus is released. Several people have the knowledge to patch the security hole exploited by the virus. The larger system of users does not become immune until those with the knowledge write and distribute the patch. The patch doesn't exist before the virus challenges it. It gets created out of existing potential.
As most of us know (the article's been slashdotted, so I don't know if it's there), vaccines actually work by inoculating a small quantity of the agent into our system so that our immunodefensive system can learn how to combat it when it comes back full force.
... No? Well, there's nothing wrong with letting him play in the rain, then." And indeed there wasn't. Now I don't care about the cold, I'm very resistant to common disease and pain (I once had an ingrown toenail that I foolishly let grow and infect, and the podologist said it was the biggest she'd ever seen and exclaimed "It must hurt like hell!" and my genuinely surprised reply was "It's supposed to hurt?"). When most people I know catch the flu and so do I, they're floored for two weeks and load up on antibiotics (which don't make a fucking difference because the flu is a virus and antibiotics only kill bacterias!), and I just sniffle for a few days and go on with my life like nothin'.
When I was a baby and a kid, my parents let me walk on the floor naked, put things in my mouth and all things that most parents shriek at. But the consequence is that my immunodefensive system got extremely strong very soon, so now I don't have any problems. In kindergarten and school I would drive teachers mad because I'd play in the rain with only a shirt on, and they'd call my mom and she'd simply reply "Well, does he get sick?
I know it sounds like I'm recounting all of this just to brag, but it's actually to prove a point. Most people will cover up with a bunch of sweaters (especially their children) whenever it's a bit cold, or it rains. We're not made of sugar! The rain won't melt us! It's good to be a little exposed to the Bad Things of this world, because it's the only way we can fight them when we get really exposed.
There's a BIG LEAP from the observation that viruses are part of the computer evolution and will shape how it works to thinking Antivirus Software (or hardware) is the solution.
It's simply ridiculous to jump to this conclusion -- if anything, you have to assume that Antivirus Software is a DEAD END in computer evolution, as it helps prevent the survival of the fittest.
Only if the true outcome is safe design, safe code and safe users, have we been successful and have evolved. Even suggesting anti-virus here is like suggesting kevlar vests for bald eagles to protect them against hunters. After a few generations, you'll end up with eagles without feathers on their chests, who NEED the kevlar vest in order to not freeze to death.
The successful business operator isn't the one who makes sure that there's anti-virus software installed on every workstation. He'll be likely to be hit by a virus that the anti-virus software couldn't handle, or who was brought in on a laptop without the latest definitions. That's a dead end, and even though many of them will survive, they don't represent an evolutionary change for the better. Tomorrow, you'll find these armadillos squished flat under the truck wheels they could never predict.
The successful business operator whose business genes will win in the long run is the one who examines what he buys, educates the users, and can find alternatives when something goes wrong. He'll be able to adapt, and is evolving the business into something that can survive even as the environments and predators change. The human being might not have the armor plating of an armadillo, but it adapts and survives.
Regards,
--
*Art
I really don't buy the biological comparison.
It seems to be implying that computer viruses have to exist. This is where the distinction lies. Biological viruses are needed for many reasons, that is not the case with the computer variety. Computer viruses are by the very nature designed to destroy property and without them no property would be destroyed.
Secondly and I think this is the most important point it implies that a computer can build an immunity to viruses through infection. Obviously that is not the case; it requires humans to do that for them. The whole reason bio viruses can be seen as good is the fact that a lesser virus can be used to build up an immunity. Until the day comes that a computer will close port 139 after getting hit but a virus affecting that port then the comparison does not hold.
I think he is implying Darwinism. I.E. Those that do not adapt to virii attack, become extinct.
The problem is that those who survive get better at surviving viruses, but that diverts energy away from the constructive activities that we could be undertaking if we weren't defending ourselves from the unholy alliance of Bill Gates and half-assed teenaged code wankers.
Weed out the week and stupid, leave only the competent. We need less computer users anyway. We can go back to good old BBSing and a USENET free of assholes.
I don't recall that BBSes and USENET had fewer assholes back in the day, though I'll grant you that fewer of them were dumb assholes.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Surviving a flu virus does NOT improve your resistance to plague. In fact, it doesn't necessarily even improve your resistance to the next season's flu variant. The immune system is very specific. With very few exceptions, immune resistance is absolutely disease specific. Nietzsche was not an epidemiologist: what does not kill you usually makes you weaker, more susceptible to the next infection.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Do Linux, BSD, and Mac OS X have enough people checking for security flaws? Or do all these viruses actually HELP windows catch up?
Will windows eventually become better as a result of all these attacks?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've always thought that if you wanted to really wreak some havoc with a worm, rather than the crap we see now where it simply multiplies like wildfire, have some fun on the systems while you're there. Search for Excel documents, locate cells with numbers, and change them. Alter formulae. Check Word docs for addresses and phone numbers, and change them. Insert random vulgarities. Modify databases. Shuffle values in address books. Seek out financial records (Quickbooks, M.Y.O.B., whatever else) and fudge some numbers. Why just reboot a computer or wipe the drive clean? Imagine something like I described running for even a few hours before it's noticed. Look how many individuals and businesses *still* don't know they've got code red-infected machines. If these bastards really wanted to cause some problems, I think this would be the way.
do not read this line twice.
{Of apples and oranges}
This is the sort of flawed logic that arises from the use of analogies. I mean you can't define one system by using facts from another system and expect it to be completely accurate, they are different systems, if they were the same system you wouldn't need to use analogies; they'd be the same...
A computer virus is not naturally occurring so it should not be compared to something that is naturally occurring.
So, with that said, here is my analogy on why this is flawed. "Hey Biff I have a truck to help you move". Ned shows up with a car, Biff says, "Where is your truck?" Ned says "a car is like a truck"
I also must disagree with the good doctor. "SDF: Computer viruses are exactly like the normal viruses." They are not exactly alike, they may have similar characteristics but they are not exactly alike. I am a security administrator for a Fortune 500 company, that does not qualify me to publish a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association, so when they come to interview me, which I am sure they will, about this seasons flu, I will decline.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
I suppose his argument could be supported more by comparing computers systems and their interactions to an evolving system. A simple, primitive, and growing system faces challenges which, for the most part, allow it to evolve. Its base medium, biological or electronical is irrelevant, although much of thier bases is similar anyhow. In biological systems, viruses develop as a counterpart to some other biological medium (namely cell material) that they can interact with for good or bad...which is also irrelevant. Computer viruses also are developed as a counterpart to some other "good" system. The only major difference between the two is their method of creation: biological viruses were originally spawned from simple chemical reactions as were their intended targets...depending on your belief system of course. (see foot note). Computer viruses were spawned by (usually) malicious h@x0rs (humans...we hope) as were their counterparts.
Note: My use of Darwinism and natural science as an explanation of human existance is a personal belief but is not meant to insult or demean anyone who believes in other more supernatural intervention who would otherwise not put human and virus creation in the same catagory.
The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
Partially correct.
The black death wiped out half of europes population, yet it created no natural immunity in the survivors. Today we have a smaller-scale problem of the same kind with HIV.
In windows, some viruses have and do cause changes for the better. I hate windows with a passion, but I can't deny that some things have improved.
Other virus outbreaks just kill a couple thousand machines and that's that.
There's one important difference to biology: When windows gets infected, Linux and other OSes gain the same knowledge boost and might make changes to protect themselves against future viruses. Thus, the network as a whole is also made stronger.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
After reading some of the comments, it seems that people agree that almost all viruses used lately are somewhat harmful, but not as bad as they could be.
What was the last virus that really did exploit a serious security hole to the worse possible extent? SQL Slammer maybe? I would imagine that any virus that has access to run a process on a remote machine with administrative rights could do some real, permanent damage (e.g. delete all system files that don't happen to be in use at the time).
Why do virus writers write malicious viruses that aren't *that* malicious (or at least as much as they could be)? I mean, some of those lately are set to expire! Do they hope that if they get caught, the judge will go easier on them since it "wasn't really that bad"?
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler