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
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
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.
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.
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
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