[49119] in Cypherpunks
Re: C'mon, How Hard is it to Write a Virus or Trojan Horse? (was Re: Apology and clarification)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathaniel Borenstein)
Sat Feb 3 15:46:30 1996
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 15:44:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, Jamie Zawinski <jwz@netscape.com>
In-Reply-To: <31109E96.4276446A@netscape.com>
Excerpts from mail.cypherpunks: 1-Feb-96 Re: C'mon, How Hard is it t..
Jamie Zawinski@netscape. (2014*)
> > Is it your position that no systematic flaw in your security is real
> > until someone has actually broken it?
> Of course not. You don't have to actually break it to show that it's
> possible.
> Of course, you *do* have to show the likelyhood of success and effort
> required to pull it off as well before it's interesting at all, whether
> it's theoretically possible or not.
OK, let's try this again: Is it your position that the hardest part of
the attack we've outlined is the large-scale infection of consumer's
machines with untrusted code, using a virus, Trojan Horse, or some other
method? And that this attack is not serious because doing that is
prohibitively difficult? If so, I agree with the first claim but not
the second. But I'm really trying to get clear about your position
here. -- Nathaniel
--------
Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@fv.com>
Chief Scientist, First Virtual Holdings
FAQ & PGP key: nsb+faq@nsb.fv.com
