Re: worms versus viruses (was Re: Apple ][ worms DO exist!)

[dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)]

Sean Dockery (dockery@griffin.cuc.ab.ca) wrote:
:   For posterity...  :)

:   A virus is a code stub which attaches itself to other programs, and its
: usual purpose is to bring a system down (usually on a specified date in
: order to give it time to spread.)  Less malevolent viruses don't have a
: doomsday date and tend to be more of a nuisance to the user than a danger
: to system hardware or data.

:   A worms does not necessarily have to destroy system data to propagate
: itself, and its usual purpose is to consume system resources.  I have never
: heard of benevolent worms.

Post-posterity:
The original attempt at something like this was at Xerox PARC. It
was (I believe) called a virus at the time, because it was to infect the
system it was on.

It was a small maintanence program that was supposed to run at any terminal
it found unattended. Its purpose was entirely beneficial. Due to a code bug,
it starting moving around the PARC net faster than it was suppsoed to. They
stomped it. When word leaked out, someone got the idea of something similar
doing this on purpose. Technically, it is what we'd call a worm today since
it travelled a net.

Due to bad press, attempts at benevolent self-directed programs have been
discouraged. I've heard talk of them in conjunction with genetic algorithm
folks, but the talk is always kept private because of the inevitable
reaction. Kind of like trying to talk about genetic engineering -- you get
about 2 minutes into a conversation before someone brings up Nazi war
crimes.

It still *is* a good idea. But you'd need to make sure it was absolutely bug
free and take out umpty billion dollars of liability insurance, and you'd
still get hooted off the net.
--
dynasor@infi.net                                       The Doctor is on.