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. "

Comments

Absolutely!!!

[eyegor]

Plus, it REALLY helps the bottom line of Symantec and McAfee.

So by extension...

[bc90021]

...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. ;)

summary

[IFF123]

Whatever doesn't crash you makes you stronger.

robustness

[Anonymous Coward]

Database robustness is built by the /. effect, and without it you would have a much weaker ecosystem.

No, wait...

There are good comparisons, and bad ones

[Liselle]

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.

Why you should drink tap water

[brejc8]

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.

So that being the case

[Ridgelift]

So if that's the case, that viruses make operating systems strong, Windows is the best operating system in the world!

Hmmm...

PROOF that Linux is weak!

[Anonymous Coward]

It never gets infected, so how can it build up immunity?!?

If it weren't for viruses and blackhats...

[cowbutt]

...the situation would be worse not better. And I say this as a white-hatted security consultant.

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.

--

Should we drink tapwater, you Commie?

[Henry V .009]

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.

Re:He's kind-of wrong anyway

[Psyx]

"Immunity is exposed by infection. It isn't created out of thin air as needed."

Immunity to computer viruses/worms and the ilk is indeed created/coded as soon as the susceptibility is detected. Sometimes that happens before an infection, sometimes it happens afterwards.

So yes, infection can expose immunity, but it can also lead to the purposeful creation of immunity (immunization). For example: if smallpox didn't previously exist, would a vaccine have been developed against it? I doubt it. Then again, in that case, one could argue that the intelligence of the smallpox susceptible population had the effect of making them immune.

Finally, since I can't read the Slashdotted site, I can only go from the tagline. It mentions building immunity, not creating it. Removing the susceptible parts of the population does build immunity in the population as a percentage.

You're kind-of wrong

[loose_change]

Immunity is exposed by infection. It isn't created out of thin air as needed.

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.

Re: Linux

[bussdriver]

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?