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. "
...this guy is implying that people learn from virus attacks?
lol!
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
Plus, it REALLY helps the bottom line of Symantec and McAfee.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Yes, we need to have viruses. Or else, we'll have viruses.
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
Whatever doesn't crash you makes you stronger.
Who took my tinfoil hat?
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
Database robustness is built by the /. effect, and without it you would have a much weaker ecosystem.
No, wait...
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."
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
I am just wondering if there are no viruses then what difference does a weaker ecosystem make?
I guess in the end he really isn't stating anything world shattering. It just get back to the adage "What ever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger".
E.
Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
So if that's the case, that viruses make operating systems strong, Windows is the best operating system in the world!
Hmmm...
Ruby on Rails Screencast
It never gets infected, so how can it build up immunity?!?
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.
See, if we didn't have drug laws, the government wouldn't have spy cameras, stop and search laws, phone taps, email snooping etc and they'd have no idea what people were up to. They'd have to invent another bogeyman to keep an eye on us. Terrorism for example. The advantage of having another excuse like that is to think ahead and plan for the day all drugs are legal, such as the direction Europe is taking.
An infection destroys the weaklings and the unlucky, leaving the robust and lucky still standing.
If an infection destroys too many of the unlucky, or if the weaklings were the only ones carrying the genetics (or protein rings) required for defense against the next big infection, well... it's the Telephone Sanitisers and The "B" Ark all over again. Be a good lad and throw me my rubber duck, will you? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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!
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.
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."
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.
--
I mean, if there were no infectious agents, we'd have no need for an immunity system. Since both Mother Nature and yer average geek are generally quite averse to expending energy needlessly, this would free up resources for other things, some of which might even have positive benefits.
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?
-- Insert your favorite "The Matrix" quote here --
"That which doesn't kill Windows only makes it stronger."
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
If there were no worms of vira, why would we have to secure it agains it.:)
And if a server boots in the forest, does it beep?
For all that is holy, the plural of "virus" is "viruses."
You want some analogies?
Computers have varying levels of protection: We, administrators, play the role of t-cells, white blood cells, and macrophages.
So a computer 'ecosystem' is like a lan or a network; or even the internet. So the immune response? Train the users not to click attachments. Install firewalls. Install filters. Install anti-virus programs. Install patches.
Don't forget that systems aren't static! Windows Update, patches, new holes, etc, are 'discovered' and 'sealed' in organic, not deterministic, fashion. Likewise as new systems are brought into the network, they will/should have greater protection, according to patches, newer users with 'learned' behavior from prior attacks, and newer software.
You can't treat a computer network separate from the users, else you can't take into account trojans!
GPL Deconstructed
Why computer virus writers are useful and we should thank them.
SyS64738
08/25/2003
The title is obviously a provocation. I am considered a balanced personality but sometimes, I like to stretch things to the extreme and to provoke reactions. This article is one of my rare attempts to provoke you... or not?
Today, after the alarm caused by the fast diffusion of the Sobig virus, we are all talking about the reasons why virus writers are coding more and more viruses.
"They should stop, somebody stop them!" I hear all the time but... is this right?
We try to answer to this question with an interview with Professor Samuel D. Forrester, one of the most famous immunologists in the world. Dr. Forrester is on the run this year to get the Nobel Prize for his recent discovery of the mechanisms of aggression of over-reacting immune cells and antibodies. He teaches at the Immunology faculty at the Konigsberg University since 1986.
Zone-H: ZH
Professor Samuel D. Forrester: SDF
ZH: Thanks for having accepted to release an interview to Zone-H
SDF: Thank you, even if it is quite unusual to be interviewed by a computer security website.
ZH: Dr. Forrester, can you tell us what is the branch of the immunology?
SDF: Immunology is the study of the complex and sophisticated immune system. The immune system is a network of cells and organs that work together to defend the body against attacks by "foreign" invaders or germs. The body provides an excellent environment for germs. When they do break into a system, it is the immune system's job to keep them out or to seek and destroy them.
ZH: What is the job of the immunologist?
SDF: Clinical immunologists research new tests and treatments involving allergic and immunologic disorders of the immune system. They work with physicians in general practice and in hospital-based specialties to treat diseases using complex and sophisticated clinical techniques. The science of clinical immunology is a fast developing area of the medical profession. The role of the immunologist is increasingly important, both in laboratory work and in patient care.
ZH: Have you heard about the recent Sobig-F virus deployment?
SDF: Yes, I read something on the newspapers. Even if computer science is not my science, the topic of the computer viruses is obviously of my interest. See, many aspects of the traditional immunology and the computer viruses are in common.
ZH: And this is the reason why Zone-H wanted this interview.... Dr. Forrester, what do you think about computer viruses, what do you know about them?
SDF: Computer viruses are exactly like the normal viruses. They can kill you if your immune system doesn't work, but at the same time, your body should thank them if your immune system is today capable to protect you from deadly illnesses.
ZH: Can you please develop the concept?
SDF: It's simple: every time you get a cold, you sneeze. But you could die, actually. The only reason why you don't die is because your immune system has been programmed to react to the "threat" posed by a germ. It's a paradox, but it's the same germ that could kill you that trained your immune system to react when invaded.
ZH: And what makes the difference? How is it possible that a germ can kill you and the same germ can train your immune system making you stronger?
SDF: It's just a matter of doses. Like with wine, one glass every day makes your heart stronger and lowers your blood pressure, one bottle every day can kill you. This is the concept on which vaccines are based.
ZH: We understand that. Can we stretch the concept saying that a constant flow of germs, if received in the proper dose, makes the body actually stronger?
SDF: Absolutely. If hypothetically we could take two newborn twins and put one of them under a glass-dome and the other one straight into the dangers of the real world, guess who would survive in case of a serious plague?
ZH: The
The USSR did huge studies on this, varying the flourine levels and getting statistics.
Mod the parent down. I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
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.
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.
This is definitely an outrageous statement coming from a professional. Consider that viruses that humans get as opposed to computer viruses, are not created. Now we all know that some have been created, but not to the extent of computer viruses. How responsible would it be for the Center for Disease Control to create viruses unleash them with the monicker "Hey we did it for your immune system. Is this guy insane. Remember that people rely on electricity, so stop to think about all of the emergency rooms that had no power. Stop to think about surgeons in the middle of surgery who had power zapped on them due to a virus.
ZH: So you are saying that virus writers have their own role in the Internet system.
SDF: Absolutely.
This leads me to believe that some of these scientist create viruses and unleash them to the general public. Anytime I see this guy's name mentioned anywhere near the word government I would hope he is not under contract with them in any shape fashion or form for his lack of ethics.
To think virus writers have a purpose is the most ludicrous statement I've heard to date. Does this moron have a clue as to how much money companies spend in downtime due to some e-diots writing shit nobody wants on their systems. Does this e-diot have any idea how much time admins have to spend fixing machines, not to mention software developers working double time for a fix. What the hell is the net coming to?
MoFscker
You don't use flouride to kill bacteria in water. It is added as a form of mass medication to prevent tooth decay. Bacteria and other nasties in tap water are usually killed by chlorine or ozone (although there are other ways it can be done, such as using UV). Over chlorination is usually avoided because it makes the water taste bad, is hazardous if you REALLY overdo it, and because it is a waste of money. Too much ozone is hard on pipes. Too much flouride kills people with weak kidneys (well, actually if you get the levels high enough, it will kill anyone, but that's way above the level used in municipal water systems).
I like my beverages with warning labels!
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$)
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.
He's not saying that a world in which no viruses were created would have more security problems. Rather that a world in which no viruses were released into the wild (but in which viruses continued to be developed) would be very susceptible. Even better: if there were two completely disconnected internets (call them Europe and North America before 1492) only one of which had viruses released onto it then the other internet would be a security train wreck waiting to happen. The absence of such a large virus proving-ground explains why the propagation methods of most viruses are flawed.
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.
Ok, so every virus writer on the planet has left your machine alone. It's running fine and has never been patched. You surf all day long with no more than a pop-up ad. Then comes the horde of flying saucers who tap into the internet and take over all of the PCs using the RPC flaw, thus using our own global network against us. Your PC is but the first to fall.
Meanwhile, everyone else has patched their systems, and is now joining in on the offensive. I, for one, Welcome our new alien overlords, but you will be one of the slaves building the giant statue of Kang.
One of the weaknesses of a group mind - they never wrote any software viruses, so they never learned to build anti-virus software. If they had A/V software, we never would have been able to send them that virus to drop their shields.
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 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
You could do a little beter than just dynamic code unrolling. Each time the virus propagates, it needs to rewrite parts of itself at the machine code level, so that the bitpattern changes. For example, there's more than one way to zero a register (XOR with self, subtract from self, move immediate zero to self) and there's more than one way to add a constant (add one, subtract -1). This would make viruses harder to identify.
Viruses also need to propagate decoys. For example, 65 gigabytes of simple pattern, bzip'd, is less than 100k. So, to thwart scanning of compressed files, send around lots of compressed nothing, that will bog down the scanners. That will cause people not to use them.
SoBig's rendezvous scheme was also pretty silly. 20 fixed IP addresses? Get real. Each virus should carry around (say) 100 IP addresses, and as it propagates it should randomly replace old addresses with new ones (dynamically assigned IP addresses would give this some trouble -- imagine that, variable IP addresses as a good thing). That way the viruses form a mesh that is not vulnerable to the loss of just a few links. Communications over the mesh would need to be public-key-signed, so that it could not be hijacked by people attempting to trace the behavior of the virus.
It could also tear apart its "next step" into pieces so that anyone intercepting just a few copies of the virus would be unable to tell what to do. At the activation time, it could do peer-to-peer reassembly of the Next Step, either using simple cut-and-paste, or using something more clever like Reed-Solomon coding so that it need not be so picky about exactly which peers it finds. (The peers, of course, must be programmed not to reveal their part of the Next Step until after the activation time.)
There's also been not nearly enough multi-mode propagation. An email virus combined with a few buffer-overflow attacks could get in behind a firewall and make a thorough mess of things.
The virus could also undertake a DDOS against all the usual suspects after it had achieved critical mass (similar to the behavior of actual bacteria as individuals, versus as a group) to make it difficult to receive security updates or news.
So, yeah, life could get plenty interesting.
{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.
There is no listing for virii, but Dorlands Medical dictionary (probably one of the most widely used ones), lists viruses as the plural of virus. There is no medical word virii. I have never heard any of my medical co-workers use virii - we all use viruses.
..........FULL STOP.
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!
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
I think they have no choice. In addition the horrid licensing schemes and bad business practices (most of which the common public is not aware of anyways), viruses and hacks are a major bane of MS products. If anything, I think that such problems are one of the major points causing people to look at alternate solutions. Many have pointed out that perhaps this is the point of current viruses such as slammer, to point out what a joke MS "security" is.
Now, push the fast-forward button. Microsoft doesn't improve security, they lose customers. Licensing schemes get worse... they lose customers. In the end, I think that we will see improvements in windows, or we'll see windows dying and linux improving where it once treaded (to make up ground). Personally, I'm not so attached to linux that I wouldn't shell out for MS if they managed to make a decently secure product without an insane license. And there are improvements... just try running an old 95 machine and see how many times it crashes over XP...
Remember about American Indians and people from Polynesia? The arrival of germs brought by Spanish and French invaders mostly exterminated them. The few of them whose immune system was strong enough and trained enough to sustain the arrival of new germs, have survived.
Mmm hmm. And we good old British WASPs played no role in that at all, eh?
I'm not saying that the French and the Spanish did nothing. But the spread of smallpox among t North American plains Indians was almost wholly the fault (even conscious in some cases) of the English-speaking settlers coming from the east.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the convenient omission of the now-dominant national group kind of pissed me off.