Viruses, Tapeworms, and Trojans, Oh My!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2008 1:33 PM EDT |
An e-zine that I read has had a "call for papers". The Linux/Lxer community has been dealing with spammers and crackers since the beginning, and I'm sure that some of you have opinions and maybe even experience in these matters. So here's your chance to see your name in bits, be it long or short, opinion or well-researched fact, or just spouting. http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle457-20080224.html#acfp ...the relevant part of which is this: ======== Viruses, Tapeworms, and Trojans, Oh My! The first issue arises from the fact that my lovely and talented wife Cathy managed to pick up one of the nastiest computer pathogens I've ever heard of. It has cost her a month of evenings tinkering and she's still not entirely sure she's rid of it. Somebody has made her very angry. This, I can tell you from my own experience, is a mistake. So for our first themed issue, I'd like to see non-technical articles and letters on this peculiar phenomenon. Who writes the damn things and why? In libertarian terms, precisely what ethical breach are they guilty of? What is an appropriate way to deal with such individuals? I wish it were possible to rewrite their nasty little pets so that they'd crawl back home somehow and utterly destroy their creators' computers. But that's just me. Get a rope. ======== |
| hkwint Oct 19, 2008 3:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:In libertarian terms, precisely what ethical breach are they guilty of? Though I'm not very familiar with Libertarians etc. I'd say 'abstract' trespassing on someones property. |
| azerthoth Oct 19, 2008 4:29 PM EDT |
Bob, thought that would be fairly straight forward, on the principle that nothing that does not hurt a person either physically or financially is against the law, the crime here is theft. Theft of time to fix the damage that the virii caused. Theft of a paid for product (your internet). Theft of information which could be used to cause financial damage. I'm sorry though, piece of mind nor actually being happy is a right, they are goals, but you have no right to actually succeed in them, only the right to try. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2008 4:57 PM EDT |
Trespassing is my opinion also. I already submitting a "letter to the editor" style missive for that issue, when it comes out. But I'm curious, aren't Democrats and Republicans also against computer viruses et al? I doubt a reasonably well-thought-out feature by someone who does not define themselves as Libertarian would be accepted too. "but you have no right to actually succeed in them, only the right to try." That's why it's called "Persuit of Happiness". |
| tracyanne Oct 19, 2008 5:04 PM EDT |
It's so long since I've actually had to deal with such things, I've forgotten what it's like. Anyone I come across who has such infections I try to move them to Linux, if I'm not successful, I do what I can and explain to them that they will most likely get infected again, and forget about them. If they don't come back I've lost nothing. |
| gus3 Oct 19, 2008 11:03 PM EDT |
@Bob: Not to cast aspersions on your spelling, but that's a very descriptive typo: "Per Suit of Happiness." As in, "I'm unhappy, so I'm going to sue." |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 20, 2008 9:27 AM EDT |
Gus, I also note serious tense and person grammatical errors, but why not? Lets put in some punctuation errors as well, maybe a run-on sentence or three, some pureed mixed metaphors, make this the Knoppix DVD "It was a dark, and stormy distribution, like Debian Sid in the days of 2.4.9 swap storms" of paragraphs. Never let it be said that I didn't let it be said! |
| number6x Oct 20, 2008 10:15 AM EDT |
Per Suit of Happiness... Darl McBrides's final defense in Court. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 20, 2008 11:00 AM EDT |
So no one is going to post the correct spelling? Fine, I'll go look it up... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Ok, "pursuit". Thank you. Maybe I'll remember it, maybe not, but at least I need to find a way to have ispell flag the darned thing for me in the future. |
| number6x Oct 20, 2008 11:28 AM EDT |
i compile to check my spelling |
| phsolide Oct 20, 2008 6:24 PM EDT |
If you are collecting opinions, I'll offer that there's really no "crime" at all. I'm going to use some stricter jargon than is currently fashionable here: "badware" just covers too much ground to have any meaning, and not just any old program is a "virus" or a "worm". A virus is a piece of code that can reproduce itself, in the context of an executable file and a system of other executable files. That is, some human has to run the virus to get it to produce an infection. Note that this definition limits it to a single computer unless something like removable media or a shared remote filesystem exists. A worm is a piece of code that can reproduce itself, in the context of an executing process and a system of communicating executing processes. And yes, "process" is a bit vague, but that only goes to the non-criminality of a virus or tapeworm per se. An "infected" process gets used to create another "infected" process. No human intervention required. Except for "process" I believe you could actually define all the terms in my above definitions pretty strictly. Unfortunately, that would catch "cat" and "cp" and almost every compiler ever written in its own language. cp /usr/bin/cp virus.example probably is a simple virus by definition. To sum up: the bad part of viruses and worms is just a corner case of the larger phenomenon of human or automatic self replication. If we want to assign some kind of ethical judgment to self-replication, we would make the mistake of condeming the useful aspects, or condoning the harmful aspects. Rather like banning screwdrivers because the occasional nutter kills someone else with a screwdriver. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 20, 2008 6:27 PM EDT |
> Rather like banning screwdrivers because the occasional nutter kills someone else with a screwdriver. If you look at the original, the issue is not the virus/malware itself, but the people who deliberately write and release them. Exactly like punishing someone for killing another, with a screwdriver, without worrying about it being a screwdriver. It is the volitional act that matters, not the method. |
| jdixon Oct 20, 2008 6:37 PM EDT |
> Rather like banning screwdrivers because the occasional nutter kills someone else with a screwdriver. I agree that it's trespassing. If you don't want a screwdriver in your sandwich, and someone puts one there, and you chip a tooth, has there been no wrong done? :) The fact that it's hard to define doesn't change the trespass. A program which is installed on your computer without your consent is trespass by the person who installed it or caused it to be installed. They've entered your property without your permission. |
You cannot post until you login.