Re: [masq] 1st virus in Linux :( (fwd)

Olaf Titz (
08 Feb 1997 11:44:45 +0100

Eric Hoeltzel <> wrote:
> subs. Funny, in those days the ethical virus writers took an extremely
> dim view of damaging code (replication itself was not defined as
> damaging) and a slightly dimmer view of people like McAfee. They

I don't want to start the old virus flame war again, but let me just
point out that even just replication itself _is_ damage. In order to
"work" as desired, a virus has to modify existing programs (for a
broad range of the definition of "programs", e.g. including boot
loaders etc). There are always programs where modification == damage.
Imagine the (desirable) OS where every executable has a secure
checksum stored somewhere else in a high-security area.
Even just the additional resources taken by the replication constitute

Personally, I view people who call themselves "ethical virus writers"
with suspicion.


___ or @{stud,informatik}       ____
__ o           <URL:>     <IRC:praetorius>
__/<_              >> Just as long as the wheels keep on turning round
_)>(_)______________ I will live for the groove 'til the sun goes down << ____