1993-02-12 - Re: Viral encryption

Header Data

From: “L. Detweiler” <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 686a7130e7a43a8aac24a7a15a93f6d7d9f26b31c9a915ae5cb87f4b5559a99a
Message ID: <9302121852.AA07368@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply To: <199302120541.AA06625@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-12 18:54:02 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:54:02 PST

Raw message

From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:54:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Viral encryption
In-Reply-To: <199302120541.AA06625@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9302121852.AA07368@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>I'm sick and tired of all the virus hoo-hah myself.  The only "anti-virus
>software" a hacker needs is DEBUG.  And maybe your favorite sector editor
>utility, like DISKEDIT.  Anything more, and you're an embarassment.
>Why don't you just send your life savings to McAfee while you're at it.
>I could go and quote P. T. Barnum right now, but I think my point is made.

Unfortunately most of humanity is not in the category of "hacker", and
we should be considerate of them.  While we tout cryptography for example
we have to remember that the only way that it will get into the mainstream 
is if it is integrated very nicely into foolproof user-friendly (sorry,
the term makes me cringe a bit too) software.

I don't see any constructive purpose served by viruses, and if anybody
in this group is advocating or even pursuing their development, I think
that has just brought the quality of the list down several notches, and 
really damaged the credibility of the speakers.  Definitely, they are
interesting to study, but the havoc they wreak is incalculable.  To the
extent that they encourage designers to create more straightjacket-type
security mechanisms, they are detrimental to the goal of simple and
straightforward access to computer technology, and significantly undermine
confidence in and use of that technology.





Thread