DEFMTH1.CVP   911206
 
                     Viral Myths - Malice
 
The old saw "it ain't that folks is so ignorant, it's that they
know so much that ain't so" is true in the computer virus field
as in no other I have ever been involved with.  For a variety of
reasons, hard facts about computer viral programs are extremely
hard to come by, while rumours, innuendo and outright lies
abound.
 
The terms "virus" and "damage" are so closely connected in the
minds of most computer users that "virus" is now being used to
describe any situation in which a computer is damaged,
unavailable or simply not doing what the user wants.  (This
leads to the "Hurricane Hugo Virus", the "I-hit-Exit-and-the-
word-processor-stopped Virus" and, the favourite of all
technical support people, the "Not-Plugged-In Virus".)  By the
same token, many users fear *any* viral program, regarding all
of them as if they carried the Black Death.
 
The truth is, relatively few viri perform any overt "damage" to
a system.  Of the hundreds of viral strains, only a small number
carry a "payload" intended to corrupt data or erase random
files, and these tend to be correspondingly rare in terms of
number of infections.  Those few viral variants which "destroy"
their target files or disks are, by definition, self revealing
and self limiting.
 
(Of course, I now have to back pedal by defining "overt" damage. 
All viral programs make some kind of change to the system.  Even
those which are designed to be "benign" may cause unforseen
problems in new situations.  It is quite certain that the author
of the "Stoned" virus did not intend any kind of damage to
result from its spread; he just never knew anything about RLL
disk controllers or high density disks.  Most "header" or
"integrity" checks in programs were intended only to trap bad
copies or disk sectors; they still stop programs from operating
if a viral infection occurs.  In these days of increasingly
multi-layered operating systems and "background" utility
programs, the addition of a resident virus is increasingly
likely to result in unforseen interactions.
 
It is also important to note that all viri, trojans and
hacking/breaking erode, and may ultimately destroy, the trust
and community which currently supports so much international
research and cooperation on the nets.)
 
If viral programs are not intended to cause damage, why are they
written?  My personal opinion is that this is a kind of
self-reproducing electronic graffiti.  Basically, it is an
unsightly nuisance, perpetrated by tiny minds in search of some
place in life.  Most of them don't think they are harming
anyone.  Most of them don't think.
 
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1991   DEFMTH1.CVP   911206
 
============= 
Vancouver      ROBERTS@decus.ca         | "The only thing necessary
Institute for  Robert_Slade@sfu.ca      |  for the triumph of evil
Research into  rslade@cue.bc.ca         |  is for good men to do
User           p1@CyberStore.ca         |  nothing."
Security       Canada V7K 2G6           |            - Edmund Burke