HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:03:20 GMT

>You are missing a basic point. For a virus to "check for the presence
>of a marker file" that virus has to be executing on my system, whether
>or not I have authorized it to.

So? I fail to see the problem with this. Many programs you might download
install bits of themselves into memory without your specific permission.

Besides, The only thing the virus could do would be unpack the file.. All of
the infection code would be in the marker (and you'd have to install that)


>    Besides, how does the virus *get* to my system? Either it cracked my
>security, again without my permission, or it was hidden on a file
>imported onto my system, without my knowledge (if I *know* about it,
>and import it deliberately, then packaging it as a virus was not
>necessary.)

The 'virus' would get on your system the same way the file you downloaded
did. Besides, it can't really be called a virus unless you install the marker
because all the compression, replication routines would be in there. All
you'd have on your system would be a self extracting archive.


>As another poster said, I don't see that there's anything you can do
>with a virus that doesn't have a non-viral alternative that is safer
>for the rest of the world.

That was me... Come to think of it though, it would be very usefull to have
this all self-contained. If a driver is made for a specific O/S it would have
to be installed (either by you or the program, and THAT would be something to
bitch about) and could either not work or crash, possibly taking the entire
system with it. If the 'virus' was written without any system or O/S specific
calls it would work on all systems without any chance of error.


Why don't you people understand, the virus would be PERFECTLY SAFE! All it
would be is a SEA unless you installed the marker. It wouldn't go copying
itself over networks or breaking into machines.

P.S. If you're worried about it being modified to not need a marker (or to
supply the file on it's own), ask yourself why. If someone was out to get you
they'd just make a program to format your HD, not compress your files!

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:34:30 GMT

>>Still, the question arises - suppose I decide I don't want those files
stored
>>compressed any more.  How would I get rid of the virus?

You either wouldn't let it 'infect' certain files or if you did you'd have a
program to remove it.

>The files are not changed by being without the marker!!  The only
>thing which is changed is that the virus will no longer spread itself.
>The compressed file _still_ has the virus prepended.  Thus it will
>_still_ be able to decompress the file upon execution.

Considering that only files that can actually be executed have control passed
to them, this virus would only compress executables. Therefore you wouldn't
have to worry about not being able to execute the decompression routine on a
machine you transfered the file onto. If you have a reason to execute the
file (ie it will run) then so will the decompression.

I also like your idea for having part of the code for the 'virus' installed
in the marker file. All the code that needs to be in a compressed file is the
decompression routine (and a code to search for the marker and pass control
so the marker could put itself into memory). The code for compression of a
file and the 'infection' of other files would be contained within the marker
program for another bit of security (if a file happens to exist called
VIRUSOK!.MRK or whatever the marker is called, it would still need to have
the complete code for the virus to be able to infect).

If the marker contained part of the virus code then only the decompression
routine (always the smaller in a compression/decompression pair) would need
to be a part of the file to be packed (this would allow for a large/complex
packer which would have a higher compression than a tiny routine).

I have a self-extracting archive maker that averages 45% of original size and
only adds 12k over a normal archive of the same file, and that includes a
full GUI with mouse support etc..


In summary:   The safeguards with a virus like this are foolproof. The chance
of a 30k (or so) marker file appearing in the right directory containing
exactly the right code (virus would use a checksum on file) are so incredibly
low you can't calculate it.

              Virus would be small enough and fast enough to be practical
(mainly for people with small HDs) and wouldn't create any problems.



--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:14:06 GMT

In article <1i87ljINNjb9@network.ucsd.edu> triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
>In article <BZS.93Jan2232208@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>The point being that these are people who have the appurtenances of
>>the upper-middle class (cultural grounding, education, and tastes,
>>etc) but don't have the wherewithal to obtain their "expected" rewards
>>in the world of today
...
>a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
>frustrated children of the elite.
...

A scathing indictment, to be sure.  However, I get a different
impression of Libertarians, based on discussions with the few
who I know.  I think it's too easy to dismiss Libertarians as
a bunch of spoiled brats who just want to "get theirs".  You
can make that claim of any political group, so that argument
turns out to be vacuous.  But if you want to pursue it, then I
would propose that perhaps the majority of Democrats and
Republicans (and therefore, unfortunately, the majority of
Americans) are in it to "get theirs".  Result: politicians
fighting like children over who gets, and how much they get.
So, the Libertarians come along and propose that we give the
politicians less money so they don't waste as much time
fighting over it.  Are you sure you are not attacking the
Libertarians because, in that scenario, you might not "get
YOURS"?  Are you sure you are not part of that subset of
Americans who base their political ideology on how to "get
thiers", and trying to find an angle with which to project
that characteristic on the Libertarians?

My own impression is that a Libertarian is more likely than
your average American to work toward good government rather
than try to pervert government in their favor.  Unfortunately,
this philosophy may have something to do with why such a small
percentage of the voting public is Libertarian.

(In case you're wondering, I'm not a Libertarian.  I voted for
an independent for President, a Republican for one of the open
Senate seats, and a Democrat for the other Senate seat.  I
consider the person more than the party.)

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: Netcom
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:47:59 GMT

In article <C0IBzw.MH8@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:
>         
>Thank you for your response to my message.  I find your answers disturbing.  
>
>Is this a general principle, or do you feel that BBSs are less liable than 
>other businesses in analogous situations?

If I own an auditorium and you rent it from me, and you give
a controversial speech, and then someone vandalizes your house,
it's not my fault.  If I own a store, and I allow you to
post a controversial notice in my shop window, but only under
the condition that your name appears on the notice, and you
agree, then it's not my fault if someone vandalizes your
house.  If I own a soap factory, and you get a soap box
produced by me, and stand on it to deliver your message....

In any case, if someone attacks you because of a controversial
view, the person who provided you the means to express your
view does not, and should not, have any liability.  It seems
like common sense to me.

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarianism 
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:50:40 GMT

If it's January, it must be time for the libertarian wars.  Brad must
be slacking off -- there was a perfect in for the Great Usenet
Copyright War to start up again, too.

Please note follow-ups.


-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: This is an Outrage!!!
Keywords: eff 2600 jive turkey explosives shoot the president oswald
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:43:19 GMT

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>       Yeah, we know about the "jive filter" too.


Fortunately, my wetware is extremely open, and I had no trouble incorporating
a jive interpreter into it.  Of course, that means it's slow, but it is also
able to work on a line-by-line or even word-by-word level.

--
Scientist: an individual concerned with identifying the laws of physics and
chemistry.  Scientists frequently dislike being called "engineers", its root,
"engine" implies dirt, as in getting one's hands covered with it.

Engineer: an individual concerned with _applying_ the laws of physics and
chemistry in a manner (e.g. through devices) to make life better.

(Prof. Adler would be proud...)

Note the absence of moral/ethical considerations, or questions of cost.

-JTT

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism 
Distribution: world
Organization: Not much.
Reply-To: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:52:28 +0000


In article <BZS.93Jan10215441@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com writes:

>Well, wake up and smell the coffee, by and large for situations where
>you generally can do those things that's exactly what is used as
>controls in this society and no one usually sees any reason to do much
>more (e.g. regulate.)

Hey pal, it's only because of regulation, that there's any shortage of places 
to rent. I own a large property anmd am more than happy to let out rooms to 
people. If I do however, I'm regulated out of existence; I have to make very 
restrictive leases. Why should I bother? Wake up yourself sometime.


Tony



+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |`morgan' is an 8MB  486/33 Cat-| Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |Warmer with a 670 MB Hard Disk.| E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |It  resides at Morgan Towers in| tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |Beautiful  Down Town  Bromley. | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |            -=<*>=-            | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+=================+===============================+==========================+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: EFF
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:44:15 GMT

In article <1ifjgtINN3sp@phakt.usc.edu>, dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David
Leslie) wrote:

> >> The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
> >> Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.
I like to hear things like this. They make me think about what we are
publishing, and challenge me to find other articles. Don't take it that
we are not attuned to criticism here. We are. We may not always heed it,
but we always hear it.


> 	Why don't you just post some of the stuff out of alt.sex.stories?
> It is about as relevant, and you should get some mail(If that is your
> true measure of success).

Mail is obviously not the true measure of success, nor did I mean my
statement to be construed in that manner. I've been involved in many
publications over many years, and I think I have an internal algorithim
that puts comments in readers' mail into the proper perspective.


> If you are implying that he said that Thoreau was a 60's radical; I guess
> you are totally wrong. There is a difference between '1960s nostalgia' and
> "..nostalgia for 1960s radicals."  The way you(plural) are jumping on 
> this guy shows a severe lack of tolerance. 

I don't think we are "jumping" on anyone. We may be having a disagreement,
but it strikes me as a reasonable disagreement. What we are also engaging
in is feedback. Something that doesn't happen on this level with mainstream
media. I think it is valuable. To say this is a "severe lack of tolerence"
is to move the discussion from the sublime to the hyperbolic.



=================== CYBERWRITERS TAKE NOTE ======================
We're always looking for ideas, items, and articles about the Net,
cyberspace, ISDN, civil liberties and the electronic frontier.
Submissions and pointers can be sent to:
                       van@eff.org.
=================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:12:44 GMT

In article <19534@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>>>One possible problem would be a malicious virus masquerading as a
>>>valid marker file.  Then any file compressed with the beneficial
>>>virus would activate the malicious virus - some sort of check would
>>>have to be made that the virus was the *RIGHT* virus.
>>
>>With all the attendant troubles of verification and the slowdown it
>>will present.
>
>Do you check all the rest of the programs on your system? They are just as
>likely to have 'evil twins' lurking around.

This isn't what I meant.  I meant that the BCV is slower because *if* it
does this check, since it needs to perform the verification, which is only
foolproof if the check is of the whole code, and the check *does* slow down
the execution of the real program beneath the virus.

>>Note that this would change the creation date of every executable
>>every time the program was run.  Even on a single-user MS-DOS system,
>>this can have some undesirable results.
>
>Like what? Your half-witted virus checker goes off and shuts down the
>computer?
>In almost every OS I've ever used there has been a way to fake the
>modification
>date, in unix you just write a new date, in MS-DOS if nothing else you just
>record the current time, set the clock to the old modification date, write
>the
>file, set the clock to the time you just recorded plus about two seconds..
>And
>decent virus could do it so it's not a very good way to tell if you're
>infected.

Again, the point is that it needs to be done, and it slows down the system,
and on the MSDOS system it can result in misdated files should any other
activities write a file during that window.

>>Does the virus get removed from memory after the executable stops?  If not,
>>then what happens when another executable is run?
>
>You do understand the meaning of the word 'virus' don't you? If it finds the
>marker (ie it's ok to execute) then it does what the name suggests and
>infects
>the next executables that you run. If it doesn't find that permission then it
>quits operation after unpacking the program.

a Mac virus can infect the Chooser (Finder?), which is 'running' all the time, 
and will allow the virus to attach itself to each executable as it is run,
or any virus could infect the boot code and the infect all executables at
next boot, or just one more at each boot, or....

'Virus' describes only the propagation method,  and (relative) size of the
thing - it does not define the mechanics of infection.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:48:09 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

| Consider a multi-user system where another user installed the virus, and I
| want to transfer a file to my home system, and need to transfer the marker
| file, but I do not know which file it is.

A. If a USER on a multi-user system is able to install the virus, then you've
   got REAL problems, I say.... unless the virus is written with that in
   mind - and only attaches itself to the user's file.

B. You wont need to transfer the marker file - the file will auto-uncompress
   with or without the marker.  The marker only prevents the spreading
   of the auto-uncompress code.

C. You don't NEED to know what file it is - just reinstall the virus
   software at home.  Of course, with the sensitivity of such a product,
   I would expect the file to be named in the manual somewhere.

| Sure, no more files are infected once
| I delete the marker file (assuming I know which file it is), ....

Again, you don't NEED to know what file it is - if you want to remove it,
run the provided (one would expect!) Beneficial Virus De-Install utility.

| ...but suppose I
| want/need to transfer a file to another system that is required to be virus-
| free?  How to I get an uninfected copy of my file?

Is there a difference between a virus that DOES NOT EXECUTE and no virus at
all?  If the auto-decompress program checks for a marker, then calls the
virus IF the marker is present, then if no marker is present no virus is
called.

Another point - if the virus code is *IN* the marker.... then no marker,
no virus - PERIOD.


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:02:43 GMT

In article <19532@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>if you install ANY program on your computer then you are
>at risk.. A game could have a bug in the high score routine and instead of
>recording the high scores it clears half the disk.

True enough.  However, I do feel that a 'beneficial' virus has the new
danger of making people complacent about secure computing, thus lessening
their safety.

>>So lesee now....I have the virus program, the marker file/compression
>program,
>>the install program, the de-install program....
>
>Or, it could all be contained in the breeder virus which would then write all
>except the decompression routine into the marker, it could either give you a
>menu of choices or it could be all command line driven..

If I have to type "BCV run", it's not viral anymore - it's a system utility.

>>Manual?  Which manual?  The virus manual?  Why make it a virus if you need
>>a manual to use it?
>
>Stop nitpicking, it could just be as simple as running the virus with -H as
>the flag.

See above.  If it does not run on its own, unassisted, it ain't no virus.  If
the BCV is really a self-installing compression utility that needs to be
invoked with the name of the file to attach to, it is really a worm version
of PKZIP.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Federal Register Available on Internet
Keywords: federal register government documents WINDO GPO gore
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:43:21 GMT

tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>I called CounterPoint and got the following information:
>
>The daily Internet service costs $5,000 per year.  They are also
>going to be charging for searching at some undetermined per/character
>amount.  They also sell a weekly CD-ROM for $1,950 per year subscription.
[...]

What restrictions are they trying to put on the redistribution of
the Federal Register?

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Programmers and Libertarians (was: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:02:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.023156.23626@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
)In article <1993Jan4.174324.9157@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>In article <C0A8tJ.Dy@panix.com> pnh@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden) writes:
)>)lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
)>)
)>)>My guess is that the correlation between programmers and
)>)>Libertarians is due to the fact that programmers (the smart
)>)>ones at least) keenly understand the KISS principle (Keep
)>)>It Simple, Stupid).
)>...
)>
)>)Analogies between engineering & politics like the above have a checkered
)>)history, to say the least.
)>
)>IMO the analogy between programs and society is stronger than the analogy
)>between machines in general and society.
)
)Wait a minute.  Before this gets out of hand, let me clarify what I said.
)
)1.  I think the KISS principle is not native to the engineering field, but
)    rather, a general principle that applies, very obviously, in engineering,
)    and also applies somewhat to bureaucracy.  Both disciplines can benefit
)    from this principle, and let's end the analogy there.

)2.  I am not advocating a redesign of the government.  I'm simply suggesting
)    that maybe the reason why programmers like libertarianism is that, being
)    personally acquainted with KISS, they recognize that, of the many
)    principles that help make for good government, KISS is the one that is
)    most sorely lacking in our current government.  They believe it should be
)    given the attention it deserves, and that we may benefit from that.
)    Could this be a reason why programmers like libertarianism?

I suppose I was saying something else, only slightly related to what
you were saying, as far as hierarchy and programming goes.  I'm not
convinced programmers are especially fond of hierarchy in their personal
lives, but I think the analogy has some validity.  At some point, you
*need* hierarchy to organize really large efforts - either programs or
societies - (IMO) - things just fall apart without it.

I do generally agree with the KISS principle, BTW, though there are times
in design where it may not be appropriate.  I would agree that if the
US has any problem wrt complexity in government it is over-complexity 
rather than under-complexity.

I'm not advocating a re-design of the government either, BTW - I'm not
all that happy with it, but it does sort-of work as is.