[3743] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: Just a rumor NOT a virus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Albert Lunde)
Sat Dec 7 14:11:23 1996
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:03:29 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <32A7BEE6.3793@surf-line.or.jp> from "Gene Hardesty" at Dec 6, 96 03:36:22 pm
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
>
> Yeah, but you never know if some virogen takes this fact that everyone
> believes that it's a rumor and makes a super virus, names it that, and
> infects the whole inet population...BUT that's unlike and it's only a
> thought. Hopefully, I'm not giving any ideas to potenial virogens out
> there....
I repeat:
> > Just because there is _some way_ to transmit a virus that
> > sounds somehow similar to a rumor does not mean the rumor is true
> > or "partially authentic". (I don't want to hear a technical
> > discussion of what can and can't be sent in e-mail, either,
> > that's also in the references from CIAC).
A rumor that was false to begin with does not become true after
the fact. I don't care how many clever ways it might have been
true. The second round of "Good Times" rumors I heard someone ask
"I heard this was false; is it true?"
The risk of a "super virus" is the same regardless of what it is
named. Effective viruses spread silently, and reveal their presence
after a delay, if at all.
--
Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
