
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 20 Aug 93 17:11:51 CDT, Karl Lui Barrus <uunet!owlnet.rice.edu!klbarrus> wrote -
While I may have been one of the first to "sound the alarm," let's get it straight -- up front -- that I do not condone any type of OS subversive program that conducts it's "activities" without the user's knowledge, or any code that has the potential to propogate without user's knowledge. That said, I think I qualify well enough as an "anti-virus professional," even though I don't -officially- produce any antivirus software for public consumption. In any case, I'm mano-en-mano with most of the notables in the field.
A few people have requested copies of the program from me, and I know of at least one person actively working on a disassembly.
I'd like to examine a copy myself.
Words escape me at the moment -- perhaps its all those damned Mooseheads...
I would like to point out the charter of this list includes the phrase "Cypherpunks write code."
[Mooseheads-kicking-in mode] "Cypherpunks write code" should be expanded (in fact, it -is- expanded, to a certain extent) to include beneficial vs non-beneificial software. But what delineates the two? This is a -very- touchy subject. "Subversive software," is a term which I use to demonstrate the properties of software which spoofs someone, in one way or another. Viruses do this, especially what we call "stealth" viruses, because of their ability to spoof the operating system. "Subversive software," in the terminolgy of KOH may be something else entirely, but any software that marks sectors bad on my disks without my permission automatically falls into the clssification of "unwanted" or "bad" software. Perhaps I don't understand or haven't familiarized myself enough with this software, but it sounds ominously like some timebomb which harbors the potential to hose the user at any given time. IMHO, this sounds like badware, but I would have to examine it further, under a debugger.
Firstly, by not jumping the gun. Secondly, by examining the software extensively. Thirdly, by making an honest analysis of its merits, its pitfalls and its contentions. All in all, if all it does is actively encrypt and compress, then it is certainly non-threatening to the general public. If it does otherwise, or has some odd caveats, the it needs to be advertised "up front." Now, don't get ne wrong -- I don't condone someone posting a debug script on the net and saying "This may hose your system," knowing full well that it will do exactly that! Comments? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBLHWMTJRLcZSdHMBNAQF4EAQAmCtz1LYKZmh21UJcyZ5K3UuVv5rJ+4c/ L3K8oYjnqFevBQvjYBgiXIMqglxvu6R4XKXRAOXHLvUeUIHZk/3Da8UrfWbDyR14 ds72gn+5l/XldKw60DvJPuFJFvsjcYigNrvnVwMbzgUbpkN8zsi6Rfy85AfeclfG AzfnMlO+cQc= =QK5G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Paul Ferguson | "Government, even in its best state, Network Integrator | is but a necessary evil; in its worst Centreville, Virginia USA | state, an intolerable one." fergp@sytex.com | - Thomas Paine, Common Sense Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/1CC04D 1993/03/15 Paul Ferguson <fergp@sytex.com> Key fingerprint = EE D2 93 7D 04 6D C6 05 AC 36 AD 9D 8E 4F 41 58
participants (1)
-
fergp@sytex.com