Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Alive Vol 2 Issue 1
/~~~~~~\ *********** ***********
~\( * * )/~ *********** ***********
( \___/ ) *** *** ***
\______/ *********** *** *** *** *******
@/ \@ *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***********
*** *** *** *** *** *********** |\__/|
******** *** ***** / \
******** *** *** ~\( 0 0 )/~
*** ( /---\ )
*** \______/
*** @/ \@
***
==============================================================
July, 1995. Volume II, Issue 1
==============================================================
CONTENTS:
1. "Alive" is here!
2. Impact of Computer Viruses on European Companies (Request for Help)
.........................................................Harald Roy
3. Risk Analysis in Selection of the Best Anti-Viral Protection
4. Viral Morality: A Call for Discussion
............................Rob Slade
5. Interview: Rob Slade - Social Convener to the Net
6. Interesting Article: The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe
7. Interesting Book: Scientific Stories
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% %
% ALIVE, Copyright 1995. By Suzana Stojakovic-Celustka %
% This magazine may be archived and reproduced without charge %
% throughout Cyberspace under the condition that it is left %
% in its entirety. Send submissions, comments, subscription %
% requests, etc. to celustka@sun.felk.cvut.cz %
% %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
****<<<<****>>>>****<<<<****>>>>****<<<<****>>>>****<<<<****>>>>****<<<<****
ALIVE IS HERE!
==============
Dear Readers!
This is a very special issue of Alive. It appears a whole year after the last
issue. Yes, I was promising to new and old Alivers new Alive coming "next
week" since last Christmas, but for this or that reason it was always
delayed. Why such a long pause between two numbers? Well, your editor has had
(again) some problems in real life. Anyway, it seems that bad times are over
(at least I hope so) and this number proves that. I can't promise when will
new issue of Alive be published, but let's hope that will be at least one
more issue till the end of this year. And, of course, enjoy reading this
number.
The main themes remain the same: computer viruses, artificial life,
artificial intelligence in all aspects - theoretical, philosophical,
technical, ethical, legal, etc. The aim is to offer good information about
above topics and also the information which is not likely to be found on
other similar forums.
About this issue:
-----------------
The first article "Impact of Computer Viruses on European Companies" is an
interesting survey of Harald Roy, MBA student on French University. The aim
of project is to establish the model of risk-exposure, quantifying possible
financial losses in European companies caused by computer viruses. The
article is actually request for help and it contains questionnaire for
collecting data for this survey.
The second article "Risk Analysis in Selection of the Best Anti-Viral
Protection" is my project which is somewhat similar to the previous one.
However, it concerns more the possible financial losses due to incomplete
and/or not objective information about anti-viral products. The article also
contains the questionnaire to collect data for accurate risk analysis.
Rob Slade's article "Viral Morality: A Call for Discussion", as well as
accompanying interview, are continuation of Grand Debate about Beneficial
Viruses and Artificial Life, started in Alive Vol I Issue 1. Mr Slade's
article is complex study which touches many problems, not only those of
computer ethics. The interview gives more information about Rob Slade himself
and explains some topics from his text in more details.
The concept of self-reproduction is not used only in writing computer
viruses. Cosmologists use it too in new theory of our Universe. The review
of Andrei Linde's article "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe",
originally appearing in Scientific American, gives an overview of basics of
this interesting (and optimistic) theory.
And for the end - an interesting book. It is review (or better to say my
impressions) of Charles Hinton's "Scientific Stories". The book is somewhat
peculiar. It wasn't easy for reading, but also not easy to forget. It wasn't
easy to write about it, especially having in mind excellent foreword written
by Jorge Luis Borges for the edition Franco Maria Ricci Editore, Parma and
Milan, 1979. Maybe it will not be easy to read what I wrote about it. Anyway,
I will be glad to hear about your impressions, either of book or my text.
About contributions and subscriptions:
--------------------------------------
Preferred form of contributions are short articles or previews. Comments on
contributions will be deeply appreciated, but will be published only if they
have a convenient form. This is -not- a place for polemics or blames, so
please don't send your comments if you have nothing constructive to say. The
preferred form of code examples is pseudo-code. The code of existing viruses
which somebody could consider beneficial will not be published here. Send
your contributions and comments to celustka@sun.felk.cvut.cz
Where can you find "Alive":
---------------------------
The magazine is available for anonymous ftp from following sites:
1. ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de in /pub/virus/texts/alive
2. ftp.demon.co.uk in /pub/antivirus/journal/alive
3. ftp.elte.hu in /pub/virnews
4. ftp.u.washington.edu in public/Alive
5. ftp.elf.stuba.sk in /pub/pc
Gophers:
saturn.felk.cvut.cz
WWW:
http://www-iwi.unisg.ch/~sambucci/icaro/texts/alive
Other places:
Slovak Antivirus Center BBS1 +42 7 2048 232 19.200 NonStop
BBS2 +42 7 2048 295 28.8 K NonStop
(administrator Peter Hubinsky)
BBS Driftnet, at Woodstock, N.B., Canada (506) 325-9002
(administrator R. Wallace Hale)
Any offer from other sites will be appreciated.
Acknowledgements:
-----------------
There are many people who helped me to publish this issue. I am sorry that I
can't mention all names (the list would be to long), but here is at least
incomplete list:
Firstly, I would like to thank to professors, administrative personnel and my
colleagues on Computer Department of Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech
Technical University in Prague, for their support.
I would like also to thank to the readers of Alive for their comments and
good wishes. I hope that this issue as well as next ones will meet their
expectations.
Special thanks to Harald Roy and Rob Slade for their appearance and
contributions in this number.
Many thanks to TECHS (to Sara, Tim, Jon1, Jon2, Roberto, Wallace...and all
others... - a very special group of anti-virus/security researchers, who are
not only good experts but also wonderful people and good friends) for staying
with me in bad moments.
Special thanks to Jivko Koltchev for his encouragement and understanding.
Also many thanks to Yaron Goland and Jon David for improving my English (and
having hard time with it) in the article about risk analysis and the review
of Scientific Stories.
About editor:
-------------
The editor is (still) a Ph.D student on Computer Department, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague. Also, resident
and working in Zagreb, Croatia.
Dear readers, enjoy the reading and make your copy of "Alive" really
alive: SPREAD IT WIDELY!
!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!
Life is like topography, Hobbes.
There are summits of happiness and success...
flat stretches of boring routine...
and valleys of frustration and failure...
- Calvin & Hobbes -
!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!---!
Harald Roy:
IMPACT OF COMPUTER VIRUSES ON EUROPEAN COMPANIES
================================================
(REQUEST FOR HELP)
I would like to ask the Readers of Alive for some help and advice for
my MBA-thesis. Thank you very much in advance !!
Here is some information about me and my project:
I am a student of Business Administration. I did a Bachelor Degree in Germany
(University of Bayreuth in Germany) and then entered a French University
(Grande Ecole) in order to do a Master's degree in European Business. That is
a three years program, which takes place in three different countries and
focuses most of all on the European context. My university is the E.A.P.
(Ecole Europeenne des Affaires - European School of Management), which is
funded by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris. E.A.P. has centers
in Paris, Oxford, Berlin and Madrid. I have spent my last year in Oxford (in
local E.A.P. center). This year I am in Madrid and my next (and final) year
will take place in Paris. As a logical conclusion I have to write my thesis
on a European topic.
MY THESIS "IMPACT OF COMPUTER VIRUSES ON EUROPEAN COMPANIES" :
Introduction:
-------------
My thesis is not written from a technical or informatic point of view, but
tries to see things from the angle of Business Administration, or to be more
exact: in terms of Financial Analysis and as a matter of Human Resources.
Some simplified explanation about these two areas:
Human Resources used to be called Personnel Department before. This has
changed as the areas of activity of "Personnel" have grown and do not simply
treat the issue of selection/recruitment any more. Human Resources (=HR) is
as well responsible for career planning, social benefits and training. I want
to focus on the training aspect with regards to Information Security. To be
more precise that means: what training does a new employee receive, are the
changes in technology matched up with the training or not, etc.
Financial Analysis is a sub-division of the Finance Area. Whether Finance in
itself is only responsible for collecting and presenting financial data (such
as sales, costs, investments etc.), Financial Analysis (=FA) goes into
further details. Its task is to find out if the company is profitable,
efficient or if it is maximizing its profits. One of FA's principal tools is
cost analysis.
Basic setting (assumption):
---------------------------
Companies have been under enormous pressure during the last years, due to a
growing competition and due to the recession that has hit Europe (although
now it is beginning to disappear). According to some sources (Economist,
Capital) the first European country to "make it out of the crisis" was the
United Kingdom at the end of 1993., largely due to a strong pound and
expanding financial sector. The next one to follow was Germany during 1994.
with comparatively low inflation rates, a healthy GNP-growth and at the very
moment a very strong currency. Germany is expected in the EU to pull the
other EU-countries with it, although the current currency turmoil might delay
that process for up to a year.
Currently (it started depending on the country about 2 years ago ) a
"modernization" of computer equipment can be observed throughout companies of
all sizes as a tool of increasing productivity and competitiveness and of
decreasing costs. Companies are beginning heavily to rely on Information
technology, exploiting the existing means of communication. In many cases the
money for the hardware is granted, but as soon as it comes to "less"
important topics such as Information Security or training of personnel, funds
are scarce. As European companies opt for modern technologies without
preparing the people for it, the discrepancy which results from this behavior
can lead to a considerable risk-exposure (from a financial point of view) for
the company.
Target group:
-------------
I am focusing on middle/upper management in European companies. They are the
ones who heavily depend on the usage of a PC and provide information
(recommendations) for top management on how to act. Due to their high
involvement in the company's business, they usually know very well how to
handle the different programs, but have little idea about the technology or
alike behind it. In common language they are generally referred to as USERs.
I am referring to a USER, as a person, who gets a PC installed at work and
the MIS-department installs the software the company owns in his computer. I
have never met or heard of larger companies, who let their employees choose
the software they want (and this stands for anti-viral products, if existing,
as well).
As a second group I am trying to get the managers of the "Management
Information Systems"- Department. Regarding MIS managers what I want to find
out is their particular view of the problem of computer viruses, how they
consider the implantation of training concerning the subject (->HR), also an
outlook upon usage of Information Technology. As well I want to find out
about their role in the company, as still MIS managers are likely to be
regarded as "someone apart" (Ernst & Young survey, U.S.A 09/94)
Idea:
-----
My idea is to investigate the current level of Information Technology used
(in Europe) and find out about managers' particular concerns (awareness)
about computer viruses. Based on the above mentioned data I want to present a
"statistic" of risk-exposure (divided by countries and sectors) and project
possible financial losses due to the findings. My idea of the risk-exposure
model is to try to quantify possible losses, taking as a base certain levels
of salary (local bureau of census information) and combine that with the
results of my questionnaire.
I assume that a person who shares information between his private PC and PC
at work and with his work-mates, having little idea about viruses and using
no protection tool, is very likely to become a victim of an infection sooner
or later. Furthermore a recommendation for the implantation of training on
MIS matters is to be made.
Methodology:
------------
a.) theoretical
I have managed to get a lot of information about Information Security
Auditing and General Security issues, as well as in depth reports about
hacking and writing of viruses and its future development. For the U.S.A
there exists a survey (carried out by Ernst & Young in 1994.) about losses
due to bad Information Security, but for Europe nothing similar is available
(at least not that I know).
sources & references:
- CompuServe
an Inter-a-like commercial on-line service which offers a variety of forums
and databases (and as well Internet access)
(1,8 million users in the U.S.A/Canada, 250,000 in Europe and approx.
300,000 in the rest of the world)
- NCSA (National Computer Security Association -U.S.A)
publishing a bulletin called Information Week (through CServe)
- Ernst & Young (Information Security Auditing) survey carried out in 09/1994
(and a year before in 1993.)
(1250 technology managers interviewed) - some facts from that survey:
- viruses encountered: 60% (1994) 54% (1993)
- work-disruption due to virus: 78% (1994) 64% (1993)
- AV-software used: 90% (1994)
- quantifiable losses due to Information Security problems in general
(only 1994)
- up to 250,000 US$ : 17%
- 250,000 to 1,000,000 US$ : 3%
- above 1,000,000 US$ : 1%
b.) practical
I have launched a survey in Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom
interviewing managers of my target group through a one-page questionnaire I
have designed. Apart from that I have arranged an interview with the MIS
manager of CITIBANK Spain. In addition to that I am trying to get in touch
with big Auditing Companies, who might be interested in my thesis and help me
by giving me access to their client data-bases and general advice (but this
is just a hope at the moment).
Time plan: (simple version)
---------------------------
Everything has to be finished by May 1996 , so that leaves still more or less
a year to go.
a.) preparation period:
January to April 1995
- collecting data and collecting even more data
- designing questionnaire
b.) practical phase
May to September 1995
- carry out survey
- carry out interviews
c.) writing phase
October(95) to May 1996
- evaluate & discuss results
- write down everything
General comments:
-----------------
Apart from all what I have just written now, I would like to point out, that
during all the period mentioned above I will be as well occupied with other
issues. That means that I either have classes at university or I am working
during an internship. Unfortunately I cannot take off a semester just for
writing my thesis, as my university does not permit such behavior.
Help needed:
-------------
Any comment or advice is highly welcome !!!!
Also:
- recommendations of literature
- data about virus related incidents in Europe
- comments on statistical models for evaluating human behavior
- "victims" for my questionnaire (Internet-version)
- people willing to discuss special points with me (e.g. evaluation of
questionnaire)
- contacts in German, British & French industry to MIS managers
Contact address: 100451.2341@COMPUSERVE.COM
My questionnaire:
-----------------
The idea is simply to rate the likelihood of a virus infection due to the
results of the questionnaire. I am simplifying things here, but it can be
assumed that the only safe PC is a PC that does not get any external
information, which in reality is hardly ever feasible.
I have sent my questionnaire to E.A.P. - students in the United Kingdom,
France, Germany and here in Spain. Each year we have to do a 3-month
internship. So they are interviewing their managers for me. Based on the fact
that they know their managers and vice versa, I am anticipating quite honest
answers due to the personal relationship between the interviewer and the
interviewee.
QUESTIONNAIRE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICAL QUESTIONS
1. field of activity of your company
state SIC number ______
2. number of employees of your company (on site)
O less than 50 O 50 to 100 O 100 to 200 O more than 200
3. your age
O below 30 O 30 to 40 O 40 to 50 O above 50
4. your nationality
O English O French O German O Spanish O other
5. your position
O middle management O upper management O top management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIN QUESTIONS
1. Do you share your PC with others ?
O yes O no O sometimes
2. Do you work with a network ?
O yes O no O sometimes O do not know
3. Do you exchange information between your PC at work and external PCs,
which do not belong to the company ? (private PC, friend's PC, etc.)
O yes O no O sometimes
4. Do you exchange information with work mates on diskette ?
O yes O no O sometimes
5. Do you exchange information via modem ?
O yes O no O sometimes O do not know
6. How do you personally asses the danger of virus infection at your
workplace ?
O unlikely O possible O very likely O do not know
7. Did you receive training on data-security or any virus related topic ?
O yes O no
8. How often do you back-up your important files ?
O never O more than once a week O once a week O less than once a
week
9. Has your PC been checked for computer viruses during the last month ?
O yes O no O do not know
10.Have you experienced a virus infection in your PC at work ?
O yes, many O yes, some O no O do not know
11.Did you observe virus infections in other PCs in your company ?
O yes, many O yes, some O no O do not know
12.a. Do you have any anti-virus software installed on your computer ?
O yes O no O do not know
(if the answer is NO or DO NOT KNOW skip the rest of the questions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.b. How old (approximately) is your virus-software ? (i.e. date of release)
(or when was the software updated the last time ?) O do not know
O less than 3 months ago O 3 to 6 months O more than 6 months ago
12.c. Was the functioning of the software explained to you ?
O yes, very good O yes, a bit O no
12.d. Did it already help to prevent an infection by a computer virus ?
O yes O no O do not know
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$
You are a champion in the art of living
if you reach only sixty-five percent
of your goals.
- Maxwell Maltz -
("Thoughts to Live By")
$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$***$$
RISK ANALYSIS IN SELECTION OF THE BEST ANTI-VIRAL PROTECTION
============================================================
This project is intended to determine the risks present in selecting anti-
viral tools. Computer users often have problems making the right decision
about the selection of the most appropriate protective tool. One of the
problems is how to obtain complete and objective information about the
anti-viral product. The decision done on the basis of incomplete information
might be wrong for a particular environment. Some risk always exists and it
could be useful to know how to decrease it.
This article presents the principles of risk analysis. The calculation of
risk in selection of anti-viral protection is very simple. Everybody can
perform it without special mathematical knowledge (except that of summation
and multiplication). However, the calculation is based on the values of
parameters in two tables which are not known in advance. The readers of Alive
are asked to help in the estimation of those parameters. The questionnaire at
the end of this text should provide the data necessary for the estimation.
The Principles of Risk Analysis
-------------------------------
Making decision, in general, means to select one possibility from a set of
alternatives. The simplest case is when a choice assures a single result e,
i.e.: e = f(d). In that case a decision is made to obtain a result with the
highest benefit. More often the result is dependent on some parameter a about
which only partial information exists, i.e. e = f(d,a). In that case the
decision is made in a condition of uncertainty.
What are the average user's alternatives in choosing an anti-viral tool?
Possible alternatives are:
d1 - scanner
d2 - behavior blocker
d3 - integrity checker
d4 - AV package (combination of different tools)
Making a decision depends on a partially known parameter ak, which is in this
case the effectiveness of the chosen protection tool.
a1 - very effective
a2 - effective, but not optimally
a3 - ineffective
On the basis of all possible alternatives a table of losses can be composed:
(Note: This table as well as two following tables are composed according to
the author's opinion. The purpose of the tables presented here is to
demonstrate the principles of risk analysis.)
L(ak,dr)| d1 d2 d3 d4
-----------------------------
a1 | 3 4 2 1
a2 | 5 6 5 4
a3 | 8 8 9 10
Table 1. The table of possible losses
(The values in the Table 1. may be expressed also in particular monetary
units, e.g. US$)
In the beginning a parameter ak can be considered a complete unknown. To
determine its possible values it is necessary to obtain additional
information. In this case it is the information about a particular type of
product. The sources of such information, xi, may be:
x1 - advertisement
x2 - review of product in a magazine, book, UseNet news group, etc.
x3 - testing results from an AV evaluator/evaluation center
x4 - recommendation of an anti-virus expert
x5 - manufacturer's documentation
etc...
Probability values for parameter ak on the basis of information found in
source xi can be as shown in following table:
P(ak/xi) | x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
-----------------------------------------
a1 | 0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2
a2 | 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.3
a3 | 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5
Table 2. The table of probability values for parameter ak
The values in this table should represent the measures of accuracy of
information about anti-viral product obtained from given source. As it is an
extremely difficult task to obtain reliable data for this Table, for the
statistical purposes an alternative approach has chosen. It was assumed that
the parameters represent the measure of user's confidence in particular
source of information. For example, the P(a3/x4) = 0.7 means the following:
the user has asked anti-virus expert (x4) for the opinion about effectiveness
of particular anti-viral product and got the answer that it is ineffective
(a3). The user believes in that information 70 % (70/100 = 0.7) and has 30 %
of suspicion, because of various reasons.
After getting the information about anti-viral tool the user can choose
different strategies Sj for decision making. Some of them are shown bellow:
| x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
-----------------------------
S1 | d1 d1 d1 d1 d1
S2 | d1 d2 d3 d3 d4
S3 | d3 d1 d4 d2 d4
S4 | d2 d4 d4 d4 d4
...................etc...
Table 3. The table of possible strategies Sj
Some strategies are obviously bad, some are good. Each chosen strategy has
its own risk. The total risk for each strategy can be calculated as the
average value of losses for the chosen strategy. R(Sj|ak) denotes the risk of
strategy Sj given the particular parameter ak (effectiveness of an anti-viral
tool). For example:
R(S1|a1) = sum [L(a1,dr)*P(a1/xi)] = L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x1) + L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x2) +
+ L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x3) + L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x4) + L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x5) =
= 3*0 + 3*0.3 + 3*0.6 + 3*0.5 + 3*0.2 =
= 0 + 0.9 + 1.8 + 1.5 + 0.6 = 4.8
R(S2|a1) = sum [L(a1,dr)*P(a1/xi)] = L(a1,d1)*P(a1/x1) + L(a1,d2)*P(a1/x2) +
+ L(a1,d3)*P(a1/x3) + L(a1,d3)*P(a1/x4) + L(a1,d4)*P(a1/x5) =
= 3*0 + 4*0.3 + 2*0.6 + 2*0.5 + 1*0.2 =
= 0 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1 + 0.2 = 3.6
...etc...
It is important to find the optimal strategy, i.e. the one for which risk
R(Sj|ak) is smallest.
Questionnaire
-------------
In the risk analysis it is important to find reliable values for the
parameters in Table 1 and Table 2. The values in Table 1 are characteristic
of user's system and depend on the user's knowledge of system and the desired
degree of protection. The values in Table 2 represent the measure of user's
confidence in information about anti-viral product obtained from given
source.
Completed questionnaires will be deeply appreciated, as well as any opinions
and suggestions about the usability and possible improvements of this risk
analysis. Please contact me at : celustka@sun.felk.cvut.cz with the subject:
Alive - Risk Analysis.
Thank you in advance!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General questions:
1. Have you experienced any computer virus attack on your computer system?
___ Yes ___ No
2. Are you the person who decides what anti-viral protection to use on your
computer system?
___ Yes ___ No
(Skip the rest if your answers to the first two questions are "No".)
3. Where is the computer system you are responsible for located?
___ at your home ___ at your company ___ on the other place
4. What is your computer system configuration?
(briefly describe)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Are you satisfied with the quality of information about anti-viral
products provided by the media?
___ Yes ___ No ___ Do not know
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for the Table 2.
6. What is your primary source of information when choosing an anti-viral
product?
___ advertisement ___ review of product in a magazine
___ UseNet news group / CIS Forum / or other on-line discussion group
___ testing results from an AV evaluator/evaluating center
___ recommendation of an anti-virus expert
___ manufacturer's documentation ___ other
7. Please use the following assumptions in answering this question:
1. You want to choose an anti-viral tool
2. You have chosen the source of information to help you in your selection
3. You expect to choose a very effective anti-viral product on the
basis of given information.
Please measure your trust in the particular source of information. The
measure should be expressed as:
5 - very reliable source (corresponds to the choice of very effective
anti-viral product as expected)
3 - reliable source (corresponds to the choice of an effective anti-viral
product, but not as effective as expected)
1 - unreliable source (corresponds to the choice of an ineffective anti-
viral product rather than a very effective one)
___ advertisement ___ review of product in a magazine
___ UseNet news group / CIS Forum / or other on-line discussion group
___ testing results from an AV evaluator/evaluating center
___ recommendation of an anti-virus expert
___ manufacturer's documentation ___ other
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for the Table 1.
8. Which of these is your preferred anti-viral tool?
___ scanner ___ behavior blocker ___ integrity checker
--- AV package (combination of different tools) ___ other tool(s)
___ do not know
9. Estimate the minimum and maximum monetary damage you are likely to suffer
if your computer system is successfully infected by a computer virus.
It is assumed that your computer system is not protected against computer
viruses.(Please express monetary amounts in US$)
_________ minimal ______________ maximal
10. Please use the following assumptions in answering this question:
1. You have chosen a particular anti-viral tool.
2. You expect it to be very effective.
Could you give the approximate estimation of the minimal and maximal loss
on your computer system due to possible viral attack if chosen anti-viral
tool appears to be:
very effective (as expected) _________ minimal ______________ maximal
effective, but not optimally _________ minimal ______________ maximal
ineffective _________ minimal ______________ maximal
(The loss should be expressed in US$)
@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@
No decision should be final
except your decision to live
creatively.
- Maxwell Maltz -
("Thoughts to Live By")
@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@-@
Rob Slade:
VIRETHIC:
=========
VIRAL MORALITY : A CALL FOR DISCUSSION
======================================
"Computer ethics" has been an ongoing study in the technical world. On the
one hand is the study of the ethical, moral, or proper use of computers. On
the other, is the study of computer crime and vandalism. Lately, I have noted
a rather desperate interest in courses or training in computer ethics, as
well as an increase in the frequency and depth of discussions regarding the
ethics of virus writing. I would like to address this latter topic,
specifically.
One problem with current discussions and literature regarding the ethics of
virus writing and distribution is the lack of dialogue between two opposing
camps. This paper is not intended to present any final answer, nor to add to
the literature in the field, but to open the field for comment. My purpose in
writing this is to provide an initial overview and to elicit feedback from
any and all concerned with the topic.
For those of traditional moral stance, the current situation is discouraging.
Peter Denning's "Computers Under Attack" (cf. BKDENING.RVW) has a very
thorough survey of the field, but it provides little in the way of answers or
hope. Deborah Johnson's work "Computer Ethics" (cf. BKCMPETH.RVW) is
pre-eminent in the field, but serves only to clarify the problem. Sarah
Gordon's interviews with computer students show responses typical of almost
all such studies. The base attitude appears to be, "If I find it interesting,
and I can do it, why do you say I shouldn't?"
The proponents of security-breaking activities often question the traditional
ethical position by asking, "Where's the harm?" This query is directly
relevant to discussions of the morality of virus writing.
I should begin by defining two generally opposed groups in this area. First
is the "antivirus", or "AV", research community. Many, though not all, of the
members of this group would be involved in producing antiviral software. All
would study viral programs with a view to eliminating viral programs in the
normal computing environment. They take a rather paranoid, and almost
obsessive, position with regard to the sharing and distribution of viral
code. (They would rejoin this last by pointing out that it isn't paranoia if
someone is *really* out to get you.)
The AV community is not really opposed to the writing of viral programs. It
is seen as a trivial, and therefore pointless, exercise; but not necessarily
evil, in itself. The communication of viral program code is also a normal
professional and academic activity, as long as it is limited, done for a
stated purpose, and the recipients are known. It is the unregulated exchange
of virus code and source, providing open access to anyone with a computer and
a modem, that is upsetting. The opposing group is therefore described as the
virus exchange community, or "vx" for short. (This designation was first used
by Sarah Gordon.) For the purposes of this paper, therefore, references to
"virus writing", "virus exchange" or "vx" will mean the uncontrolled or
unregulated exchange or provision of access to virus source and object code.
(This does not necessarily mean deliberate distribution of infected programs
by such means as infecting a legitimate program and then posting it, without
warning, to a bulletin board system. "Trojanizing" of normal software or
malicious invasion of systems is certainly happening in some areas, but it is
not needed in the current computing situation. While there is debate over the
relative contribution of "natural spread" and virus exchange to the current
virus problem, it is known that code made available only as openly published
material does eventually infect machines in the normal computing environment.
The term vx does not, therefore, require any imputation of sinister motives
or hidden activity for the purposes of this discussion.)
There are some grey areas between these two poles. Some people have both
written antiviral software *and* contributed to viral spread. Given, however,
that one could expect a continuum of opinion, those in the middle are
remarkably few. Either you are for virus exchange, or against it.
One other, separate, group should be noted. Viral programs are often cited as
an example of "artificial life", and the research community in that field,
both professional and amateur, have a legitimate interest in viral
programming. Work in the a-life field, however, does not justify unregulated
code and source exchange. For one thing, current viral programs "in the wild"
(those which are to be found in normal home and business computers, as
opposed to those which exist only in a research or laboratory environment)
have only the most tenuous claim to artificial life. Common viral programs
are simplistic snippets of code without anything like the complexity of the
simplest known natural life forms. In addition, those who really do work in
the artificial life area will be well aware that it does carry possible
dangers, and that research should be subject to controls similar to those
imposed on biological and genetic study.
The most common argument for virus-writing tends to boil down to, "You can't
stop me." Many promote virus writing on the grounds of freedom of speech, a
rather curious position in light of the incoherence of the arguments. (The
most vocal of these tend to be Americans, who frequently cite "First
Amendment Rights". This refers to the first amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which Americans tend to see as some universal law, rather than
an arbitrary political document, however desirable.)
Rights, though, carry with them a weight of responsibility. As is often
quoted, your "right" to swing your fist ceases at the end of my nose. You
have a "right" to free speech - so long as you are responsible and do not
perpetrate fraud. You have a "right" to study whatever you like - so long as
you are responsible enough not to carry out experiments in poison with human
subjects. No PC is an island - at least, not where viral programs are
concerned. Therefore, your "right" to study, write and distribute viral
programs carries the responsibility to ensure that your creations do-not
-ever-run on machines where they are not authorized.
One of the most confusing aspects of the "exchange/no exchange" debate is the
concept of the "good" virus. There is nothing inherently evil in the concept
of reproduction. (Dangerous, yes.) In fact, the very earliest experiment with
self-reproducing programs was the Xerox Worm of Shoch and Hupp. This was
designed to spawn "segments" of the central program on other machines in the
network, thus bringing the power of many processors to bear on a single
problem. Thus, in theory, viral programming could represent the same level of
advanced technology in software that parallel processing represents in
hardware.
That's the theory. And it is promoted by no less eminent a researcher than
Dr.Fred Cohen, who did seminal work on the security-breaking class of viral
programs in a thesis, in 1984, and dissertation, in 1986. Unfortunately, the
theory founders on some rather hard facts.
There are three questions to ask of a new, inherently dangerous, technology.
Has it a useful application? Can it fulfil that application better than
current technologies? And, can the danger, either inherently, or effectively,
be controlled?
To date, no one has answered those three questions. While a variety of uses
have been proposed for viral programs, there are none which are not
effectively being done by other means. No viral programs have, indeed, been
seen to be as effective as normal systems. Operating system upgrades could
not guarantee universal coverage. Network management tasks could not promise
reliable feedback. Automated utilities would confuse novice level users, who
never run utilities anyway. The most useful function is still that proposed
by Shoch and Hupp - and their programs were not, strictly speaking, viral.
(Vesselin Bontchev's examination [1] of this question is the most detailed to
date, and is required reading for all who want to join the debate. His
proposals, while demonstrating good ideas for safety and control, are still
primarily an advanced automated distribution system. The necessity for viral
functions in this regard is still unproven.)
Those in the vx camp will point to two current viral programs which, they
say, do have useful functions. One of these programs produces compressed
executable files, thus saving disk space, while the other performs encryption
on files. However, both of these functions are provided by other programs -
from which, indeed, code was stolen for those two "good" virals. Neither of
the viral programs are as easy to use or control as the original programs,
and both have bugs which must place them firmly in the malware grouping, for
nuisance value, if nothing else.
Currently, therefore, the utility of viral programs is very much unproven.
This would, though, mean only that they are neutral, were it not for the lack
of any demonstrable control. Methods of control have been discussed primarily
by Fred Cohen, but even he remains unconvincing. The mechanisms generally are
limited to environmental checks which can either fail, or be easily cut out
of the program. Some have proposed "hunter" virals, to go after programs
which "turn rogue", but a program which is corrupted will behave in
unpredictable ways and a hunter program would likely consume a lot of
resources, fail, or (most likely) both.
(Cohen frequently cites viral "programs which have been running since 1986
with no ill effects" and speaks of a VCE (viral computing environment). There
are two points to be noted here. One is that Cohen has not yet described his
viral programs in anything like the detail he put into his earlier work, so
there can be no independent assessment of his claims. The second point is
that the very term, VCE, implies that a viral computing environment is
substantially different, and should be kept separate, from the "normal"
computing environment as it is currently known. A VCE may very well be a
powerful entity, but it is still an unknown and unproven concept.)
Computer viral programs have an inherent danger: that of reproduction and
spread. If you study explosives, and pass along that knowledge, you also have
to pass along the materials before there is any risk of a blast. Even then,
the materials do not multiply themselves: when exhausted, another supply must
be found. The same is *not* true of viral programs. These entities are
*designed* to reproduce. And, unlike the study of dangerous animals, or even
germ warfare, viral programs are built to reproduce, multiply and spread
without the aid of a skilled, or even aware, operator. If you are careless
with a deadly animal or weapon, it is still only a single danger in a
localized area. If you are careless with a computer virus, it can spread
world-wide.
We do not use computers because they are smart. Computers *aren't* smart.
Sometimes we use them because they can do calculations very quickly, but even
this is only a special case of the real value of computers. Computers always
do the same thing in the same way. They are repeatable. They are, in this
manner, reliable. Even a computer error can be useful to us - so long as it
always happens the same way.
Consider, then, the computer virus. In order to reproduce without the
informed assistance of the user, the virus must be, in the computer sense,
transparent. It must operate without alerting the operator, or interfering
with the operator's interaction with the computer. If the virus even posts a
notice ("Hi! I am infecting object X!"), it has a nuisance value and is,
therefore,not good. (Vesselin Bontchev notes that even such a notice, by
possibly delaying a process, may have grave consequences far beyond
annoyance.)
If, however, the virus does *not* notify the operator, then the operator is
not aware of some additional code in the machine. This extra code will have
an unknown, and inherently unknowable, effect on the computer. The operations
of the computer are, therefore, no longer repeatable. This is a Bad Thing
(TM).
Some will protest that I have overblown the danger of both the notification
messages and the possibility of conflicts. The point that I am trying to make
is that you cannot predict the harm which may arise from interference either
with the operator or the programs. Software is digital, and is subject to
catastrophic collapse without prior warning. For those without a background
in computer risk assessment, an excellent overview for the non-professional
is found in Lauren Wiener's "Digital Woes" (cf. BKDGTLWO.RVW). An intriguing
compilation of the types of things that can go wrong is to be found in Peter
Neumann's "Computer Related Risks" (cf. BKCMRLRS.RVW). At the very least, as
Sarah Gordon points out, the virus is an autonomous agent, making decisions
and carrying out activities according to it's own internal constructs and the
intention of its programmer. This is very likely not in correspondence with
your own intention, and is therefore an invasion of privacy.
A number of virus writers will object that their creations simply are not
harmful. Not only is it impossible to guarantee that your virus will not
conflict with existing systems, you also cannot guarantee that a given system
will not conflict with your virus. Almost all file infecting viral programs
will interfere with applications which have an internal integrity checksum or
a non-standard loader, and will cause those applications to fail. (An example
of this is that Windows programs infected with DOS viral programs always fail
to load.) The "Ohio" virus (a prior version of Den Zuk) was not intended to
carry any destructive payload, but an unusual interaction with a certain
network operating system caused fatal disk corruption. Since both Ohio and
Den Zuk are examples of the often proposed "virus hunter virus", it should be
clear that the concept of using a viral program to hunt down and disinfect
other viral programs is not a good one.
Historically, and statistically, virus exchange people have been careless and
incompetent programmers. Remember that we are talking about vx, here, and
those viral programs which have been released into the wild. There may be,
carefully hidden in the desk of a virus writer, the "perfect" and harmless
virus. If so, we haven't seen it yet. The majority have obvious bugs, sloppy
coding and derivative programming. Less than one percent are interesting for
*any* reason; only a handful have unique styles of algorithms. And even these
last have programming pathologies.
There are two other reasons often given to justify virus exchange. The first
is generally described as experimentation and education. The second is
described as antiviral research, or, more commonly, assessment of antiviral
programs. These arguments *do* have some validity, and should be examined.
Ultimately, though, the reality fails to support the claim.
The call for experimentation is somewhat tied to the argument for a "good"
virus. Current viral technology may be crude and ridiculous, but how can it
be improved if there isn't any work or sharing of results? Quite true. The vx
community, however, have obviously not read or noted any programming journals
or texts. Discussions of programming and algorithms are supported by well-
annotated code fragments. You don't present a whole program to discuss a
specific function any more than you send an entire car with a manual on auto
repair. You certainly don't use encoded or "DEBUG script" object code: that
has no explanatory value at all.
And I have yet to see, in the vx materials, any discussion of legitimate and
positive uses for viral technology, any discussion of control technology, or
any discussion directed at ensuring that viral programs do not create
conflicts.
In regard to education, it is true that a study of viral programs is related
to a knowledge of operating system internals, as well as assembly language
programming. However, viral study *requires* such knowledge, rather than
providing it. Giving someone a virus and expecting them to learn from it is
akin to "teaching" a surgeon by handing him a scalpel and pointing at a
patient. Even the vx "old guard" are beginning to realize this. Viral
programs use normal computer functions. If you understand computers, a virus
is trivial. If you don't, well ...
As far as virus exchange tutorials go, well, let me put it this way. I am a
teacher. Many of you will also know that I review technical books on a daily
basis. Some are great, enough are good, many are bad and some are just plain
awful. Only a few are worse, in terms of tutorial effectiveness, than vx
"zines" (electronic periodicals).
Recently, someone who makes his living pushing virus source code promoted a
collection of viral programs by suggesting you could test antiviral programs
with it. This, superficially, sounds like a good idea - if you don't know
what *real* software testing is like. What do we know about the quality of
this "zoo" (set of virus samples)? What do we know about the structure,
organization, documentation and so forth? How many duplicates are there? Of
course, we *do* want duplicates in some cases; we want every possible
variation on polymorphs. (For Tremor, that works out to almost six billion
files.) But then, this collection was on a CD-ROM. What a pity. The most
successful viral programs are boot sector infectors, and you need to have
real, infected disks to truly test for them. At a minimum, you'd want all
seven "common" disk formats, in both system and non-system versions. That's
fourteen disks - for *each* BSI.
For all the length of this piece, it is still only an overview. And, for all
it's length, it probably hasn't convinced anyone. Ethics education (it used
to be called "values education"), in whatever form and however presented, has
very little to show that it works. There are various theories and models of
moral training, the most sophisticated probably being Lawrence Kohlberg's
"Moral Development" schema. All, though, basically boil down to sitting
around talking about ethical dilemmas. They may develop debating skills and
rhetorical sophistry, but there is no evidence to suggest that any of these
programs leads to any significant change in behavior.
While Kohlberg's model of moral development has the most detailed
construction, its utility is questionable. His system is not so much one of
values education as of values measurement. It is, therefore, a guideline for
evaluating other ethical training methods rather than a means of instruction
and change. Moral development is a six stage structure, assessing the type of
reasoning which goes into ethical choices. The stages range from "fear of
punishment" to "internal ethical principles". There is great difficulty,
however, in determining the "stage" of a given individual. Most ethical
discussions will be judged as having reasoning at all of stages three, four
and five. This entire document, for example, could be dismissed as being
level one reasoning since it mentions the possibility of the danger of virus
distribution and could therefore be seen as a "fear of punishment" (negative
consequences) on my part. On the other hand, most of Kohlberg's proponents
dismiss level six, since even a psychopath could be said to be acting from
internal principles. Kohlberg, himself, has stated that he does not know if
anyone consistently acts from stage six reasoning.
Probably the major reason for this is that modern society has no fundamental
moral foundation. The most widely cited (and Johnson gives an excellent
critique of it) is utilitarianism - "the greatest good for the greatest
number". Leaving aside the difficulties of assessing such a measure,
utilitarianism, along with all the other modern "humanistic" philosophies,
has nothing to support itself. Why is "the greatest good for the greatest
number" to be chosen over "what *I* want"? An alternative is deontology;
ethical principles derived from the concept of duty. (Ironically, this
philosophy, while arguably superior to utilitarianism, is limited to
Kohlberg's stage four almost by definition.) Again, however, there is no
underpinning to the concept of duty, itself.
Ironically, the much maligned "Judeo-Christian Ethic" did have such a
foundation for moral standards - God. The theistic universe may yet have the
last laugh over the mechanical universe of B. F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom
and Dignity". Maybe Jesus *is* the answer - or there may be no answer.
Bibliography:
[1] Bontchev, "Are `Good' Viruses Still a Bad Idea?", Proceedings of the
EICAR '94 Conference, pp.25-47, also
ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/virus/texts/viruses/goodvir.zip
[2] Clarkson, "Windows Hothouse", 1994, 0-201-62669-1, U$34.95/C$44.95 - lots
of artificial life fun with Visual C++
[3] Cohen, "It's Alive!", 1994, 0-471-00860-5, U$39.95 - an intriguing,
provoking and practical exploration of computer programs as "artificial
life", but somewhat narrow
[4] Denning, ed., "Computers Under Attack", 1990, 0-201-53067-8 - collection
of essays roughly related to security, also "the net"
[5] Ermann/Williams/Gutierrez, "Computers, ethics and society" - textbook for
computer ethics course: not great
[6] Gordon, "Technologically Enabled Crime", 1994
[7] Forester/Morrison, "Computer Ethics", 1994, 0-262-56073-9 - lots of great
stories, but short on analytical depth
[8] Johnson, "Computer Ethics", 1994, 0-13-290339-3 - the basic work in the
field, thorough coverage and good discussion starter
[9] Levy, "Artificial Life", 1992, 0-679-73489-8, U$13.00/C$17.00 - an
interesting wander through fields studying artificial life but no strong
points
[10] Neumann, "Computer-Related Risks", 1994, 0-201-55805-X, U$24.75 -
exhaustive examples from the RISKS-FORUM Digest of potential
technological perils
[11] Slade, "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses", 1994,
0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0, U$29.95 - chapter seven looks at the
computer virus and society
[12] Thro, "Artificial Life Explorer's Kit", 1993, 0-672-30301-9,
U$24.95/C$31.95 - good fun, but little analysis
[13] Wiener, "Digital Woes", 1993, 0-201-62609-8, U$22.95/C$29.95 - excellent
introduction to the risks of software
(A fuller bibliography on values education readings is available for those
demonstrating a willingness to put some effort into it, since, frankly, it's
a really disappointing field. Sarah Gordon's "Generic Virus Writer" paper has
significant resources here.)
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995
Permission is granted to post this file, in full, on any system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editors note:
-------------
cf. BKDENING.RVW, cf. BKCMPETH.RVW, cf. BKDGTLWO.RVW, cf. BKCMRLRS.RVW
mentioned in the text refer to the reviews of Denning's, Johnson's, Weiner's
and Neumann's books in the bibliography. The full reviews are to be found at
the archive site x2ftp.oulu.fi in /pub/books/slade.
The contact e-mail address for those who want to send contributions for Mr
Slade's discussion about viral morality is roberts@mukluk.decus.ca
!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!
Eternity lies in the good we leave behind us.
- Maxwell Maltz -
("Thoughts to Live By")
!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!---!ooo!
Interview:
ROB SLADE - SOCIAL CONVENER TO THE NET
======================================
Rob Slade, the author of previous article and guest of Alive in this issue,
is a data communications and security specialist from Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. His first love was teaching, and he got into computers
because of an interest in what they could do in improving the education
process in the public school system. He still has links with the education
system in British Columbia with both grade school and the college system, and
writes and speaks for the computer educators in the province. He has a B.Sc.
from the University of British Columbia, a M.S. from the University of Oregon
(in Computer and Information Science Education) and a Diploma of Christian
Studies from Regent College in Vancouver. He is the founder of the DECUS
(Digital Equipment Computer Users' Society), Canada Education and Training
SIG (Special Interest Group). He is also the founder of the DECUS Canada
Communications SIG and DECUS Canada Security SIG.
Rob Slade has both formal training in data communications and exploration
with the BBS and network community, and has done communications training for
a number of the international commercial seminar firms. His technical jobs
have involved everything from support of terminal emulation programs to
satellite communications. He considers communications technology to be the
most interesting of the various computer fields.
His research into computer viral programs started when they first appeared
as a major problem "in the wild". Acting initially as the unofficial
archivist for the budding research community, he has since become known
for "Mr. Slade's lists" of antiviral software vendors, antiviral reviews,
antiviral BBSes and virus books. One of the working group for the VIRUS-L
FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions], he is best known for a series of review and
tutorial articles which have recently been published as "Robert Slade's Guide
to Computer Viruses".
He is more widely known for his series of daily technical book reviews which
appear on appropriate newsgroups and mailing lists, including
alt.books.reviews, rec.arts.books.reviews, the *.books.technical groups and
topics related to the individual titles...etc...
However, it is the time to let Mr Slade to say something himself...
A: Why did you get interested in computer viruses and could you describe
shortly your work?
RS:
My first exposure was the flurry of messages surrounding the Lehigh virus
and then the Jerusalem (Israeli, as it was then known) virus in the fall of
1987. I started collecting postings related to viral reports, as I was
interested in what it had to say about the operating systems and functions.
For a time I was the unofficial "archivist" for this material, before
VIRUS-L started up.
I kept on archiving the virus material. In 1990, I noticed an increasing
call for assessments of antiviral software, and started doing reviews. The
list I had to collect in order to find out who made AV [Anti Virus] software
became the CONTACTS.LST, the first of what Fred Cohen called "Mr. Slade's
lists". It was followed by the quick reference list of antiviral software
reviews. In 1991, just before work got started on the FAQ [Virus-L Frequently
Asked Questions], I started writing a tutorial column on viral programs. My
involvement with Fidonet, when I started to post the columns to the VIRUS and
VIRUS_INFO echoes, became the basis of the AVBBS list. Ironically enough,
when I went to turn all of this into "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer
Viruses" (and that title was *not* my idea, blame Springer-Verlag), the work
I had to do on the book meant I had to *stop* doing active virus research. I
hope to be able to get some more done this year, but my financial situation
is not hopeful.
A: What did you write in your book?
RS:
I tried to write a practical book for the average user or manager who wants
to know what is happening, and to get some protection. As far as possible, it
is written in "plain language", and tries to define the terms clearly so that
people don't have to be experts to begin with. In fact, I stated outright in
the Preface that the one group it is *not* intended for is the virus research
community.
I included reviews of all the virus related books I could find (plus a couple
of general security ones and some fiction). There are also a large number of
software reviews of MS-DOS antivirals, Atari antivirals and MS-DOS general
security. I am, in fact, trying to get materials together for an updated
version, and have just sent out a general call for review copies.
A: What are the aims of your call for discussion about viral morality?
RS:
1) To clear the air about the confusion regarding virus exchange as opposed
to legitimate research into artificial life and "good" virii.
2) To promote discussion between vx and AV people.
3) To promote discussion of computer ethics overall.
A: Let's make some clarifications of the terms used in your article first.
What do you mean by "normal computer environment"?
RS:
Mostly I mean a normal working environment, as opposed to a research lab or
other specialized situation. Fred Cohen also refers to a "viral computing
environment", and sometimes I am opposing normal (Von Neumann) architecture
to the VCE.
A: What are "normal computer functions" ?
RS:
Copying (Input/Output), storing, decisions based on accessible data and
predetermined programming, calculations, the basics.
A: You say - "Operating system upgrades could not guarantee universal
coverage." What is "universal coverage"?
RS:
I use "universal coverage" here to refer to the fact that everyone who wants
the upgrade should be able to have access to it. This does not address any
concerns about copyright or payment. Since a viral program does not have
centralized distribution and control, then those who had *not* received the
upgrade could not request it from a central location. If there was
centralized control, then there is no significant difference between this
and "normal", non-viral, distribution.
A: Why do you think that the concept of reproduction is dangerous?
RS:
Reproduction is only really dangerous in terms of filling up memory and disk
space on a given machine, so I suppose it is reproduction *and spread* that
holds the inherent danger. A program which continues to make copies of
itself, and to spread to other machines, is going to have an unknown effect
on subsequent machines/programs/systems, and that effect is much more likely
to be damaging than to be helpful. Playing with viral programs is most akin
to playing with genetic research: if it gets away from you, you have no idea
where it is going to end up or what it will do. In fact, viral programs have
a *greater* risk of running wild than do biological organisms, since the
computer "ecosystem" is much simpler. Having computers "get sick" and crash
is much less severe than having people get sick and die, but it is
demonstrably simpler to create a computer virus than to create a viable
biological organism. Logically, therefore, every virus is potentially
dangerous.
With the exception of "system" and companion viral programs (and I only
except them because I haven't thoroughly studied them), every known viral
program "in the wild" creates some kind of problem for the normal, average,
everyday computer environment. Historically and statistically, therefore,
every virus released into the wild has been actually dangerous.
These considerations are only necessary in the "normal" computing
environment. Research on computer viral programs is not a problem if the
research area is isolated from the "real world" to avoid release. Indeed,
Fred Cohen's idea of a viral computing environment is a very exciting one,
and I'd love to do some work on it. It is likely, however, that programs from
the current computing environment would not run in a VCE, and programs meant
for a VCE would not run under current architectures. That kind of VCE *would*
be inherently safe, but it isn't the type of work that seems to be going on
right now.
A: Are the polemics about "good" vs "bad" viruses possibly arising because
of lack of good and unique definition of computer virus?
RS:
Got it in one. I think this is the heart of many disagreements about whether
a "good" virus is possible or not. Fred Cohen, for example, defines the terms
in a way which allows a lot of theory to be developed and looked at with the
tools of logic and number theory. It does not, however,translate well into
the "real world".
A: What do you mean by "real world"?
RS:
The world inhabited by real computers and the average "Joe (or Jane) User",
who doesn't really care about Turing machines, but *does* care about getting
this report done by five o'clock.
A: How do you define computer virus?
RS:
My definition, which is not accepted by everyone, is that a computer virus is
a program which is written (intended) to copy and spread itself (to other
systems) without the knowing (informed) assistance of the user.
A: How do you define worm and what relation do you see between the two?
RS:
I accept the definition of a worm as a reproductive/parasitic program which
spreads without specifically attaching or associating itself with a given
program, particularly over networks and/or mail links. However, I see this
as a distinction without a difference. By my definition, a worm is a
specialized type of virus.
A: What do you think are the basic "technical" reasons against virus writing?
RS:
In brief:
a) virus writing is a simplistic task that does not contribute to learning
about computers *or* artificial life,
b) the overwhelming majority of current viral programs are malign, either by
design or stupidity. The second reason applies only to writing and
release: if you write a virus and keep it under control only the
pointlessness reason applies.
A: Do you think that is possible to obtain absolute controllability of
anything?
RS: No. But I'm not a fatalist.
A: Assuming that major population of computer viruses is PC/DOS population,
do you think that this fact says possibly something about inherent
(technical) weaknesses of such a configuration?
RS:
Actually, while I agree that PCs have weak security, viral programs can
spread on *any* platform: they don't use any special functions. Fred Cohen
did work on several platforms. Also, David Chess [ from IBM Watson Research
Center ] has an interesting take on this: he says that the PC platform is
*very* secure - you have to convince the owner/user to run a program of yours
or a subsequent generation, and that tactic has worked very well. In
addition, I think the number of viral programs has more to do with the number
of machines available, rather than any inherent strength or weakness of the
platform.
A: Are worms (or breaking techniques) pointing to the vulnerabilities in
today distributed systems?
RS:
Generally, no. Everyone in data security knows that the *major* weaknesses
are bad passwords and social engineering. Again, I don't think that viral
programs have anything additional to point out here.
A: What is your idea of a good testing of anti-virus software?
RS:
I test every package of antiviral software as a whole, and as it would appear
to the naive (novice and uninformed) user. This is because, while most
computer users have heard of a computer virus, the majority do *not* have a
realistic idea of what a virus is or how it works. Almost every article on
viral programs which I have seen in the news media has presented an
inaccurate and warped view, so it is important to assess not only how many
viral variants an antiviral product can identify, but in what the
documentation says, and how well the installation procedure protects against
a possible pre-existing infection.
A: What is your opinion about exchange/sale of ("malicious" PC/DOS) virus
collections to legitimate evaluators/evaluating centers/producers of
antiviral products or researchers?
RS:
I am interpreting your question as referring to virus writing and exchange
(vx) groups and individuals offering their viral programs for sale, or for
trade in exchange for other code which they don't have, to av developers,
researchers or evaluators. As a reviewer, I would not buy such code or make
such trades. I am providing a service, at my own expense and to my own cost,
and I simply could not afford to pay money for the garbage that most such
offers are made on. I would not provide virus code to anyone who I was not
absolutely certain would keep it to themselves, or to other like minded AV
researchers. Those who produce the best antiviral software hold similar
opinions, and the argument that they "benefit" from the activities of vx
groups is utter nonsense. There are a number of companies who do "buy" or
"give rewards for" antiviral code. I find their activities to be shameful,
their products to be mediocre at best, and I would not provide them with
any viral code from my own collection, pitiful as it is.
I am speaking of the situation as it currently exists. The discussion of
the possibility of "good" viral programs or artificial life is not at issue
here since current vx groups have not, to date, produced anything which
benefits either objective.
A: Why people are willing to reject the concept of beneficial viruses or
artificial life in general?
RS:
For those who are actively involved in antiviral research and development,
the issue is not so much one of professional bias, as some vxers argue, as
the daily realization that the current situation has almost nothing to do
with artificial life or "good" virii. Artificial life and artificial
intelligence have been studied for years, and, while we can now get some
use out of expert systems and certain graphical algorithms, it will be a
long and arduous task to create anything like real life or intelligence.
Those who are working in the virus field are simply too busy to have time
to spend in this pursuit. (Maybe if vxers would stop releasing virii, AV
people would have the time to look into it.)
A: Regarding ethical reasons against virus writing do you think that is
possible to suggest unique ethical model for human behavior?
RS:
It certainly wouldn't be easy. People in this century are not used to
thinking of ethics or morality as anything other than an academic and
philosophical discussion.
A: Isn't it easier to concentrate to legal aspects, e.g. to establish
appropriate laws in existent legislative system(s)?
RS:
Easy answers to difficult problems are almost always wrong. In general,
laws are safeguards against minor breakdowns of social morality. When
the network of social ethics does not exist, laws are useless. In any
case, the law in Canada makes virus "release" illegal - but that hasn't
eliminated the problem.
A: Isn't the question of morality of virus writing somewhat exaggerated?
After all there are more important problems in the world - poverty,
hunger, wars, drugs abuse, etc. Isn't that just another way to avoid
discussions about real (more important) problems?
RS:
There are lots of real and important problems in the world. I have addressed
only one, because it is an area in which I have specialized knowledge. It
also touches on other problems such as that of ignorance, confused thinking,
and lack of ethical considerations in technical topics. I am not ignoring
other problems, but, as Edmound Burke said, the only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Or to put it in religious
terms (which seems to make many people so violently upset that they lose
all rationality):
"Mortal man," [God] said, "tell your people what happens when I bring war to
a land. The people of that country choose one of their number to be a
watchman. When he sees the enemy approaching, he sounds the alarm to warn
everyone. If someone hears it but pays no attention and the enemy comes
and kills him, then he is to blame for his own death. His death is his own
fault, because he paid no attention to the warning. If he had paid attention,
he could have escaped. If, however, the watchman sees the enemy coming and
does not sound the alarm, the enemy will come and kill those sinners, but I
will hold the watchman responsible for their death."
Ezekiel 33: 2-6
::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::
One of the greatest goals for all of us
is to be wiser every day.
- Maxwell Maltz -
("Thoughts to Live By")
::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::--::
Interesting Article:
THE SELF - REPRODUCING INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE
============================================
by Andrei Linde
(Scientific American, November, 1994. issue)
Reading this article, I was amazed how the concept of self - reproduction was
incorporated in the theory of our Universe. It seems that, if Andrei Linde
and his colleagues are right, this new version of the inflationary theory
which describes the Universe as a self - generating fractal that sprouts
other inflationary universes, might replace the idea that our Universe was a
single fireball created in the Big Bang. It is really an interesting and
exciting vision of Cosmos.
However, this review is intended rather to provide the brief summary of
original article for the readers of Alive than to comment the theory itself.
Few Words About the Author:
---------------------------
Andrei Linde is one of the originators of inflationary theory. After
graduating from Moscow University, he received his Ph.D at the P.N. Lebedev
Physics Institute in Moscow (Russia), where he began probing the connections
between particle physics and cosmology. He became a professor of physics at
Stanford University (U.S.A.) in 1990.
Big Bang Theory
---------------
The inflationary model has not been arbitrarily proposed by cosmologists,
first in Russia and later in U.S.A. They tried to solve some of the problems
left by the old Big Bang idea.
The Big Bang theory says that the Universe was created about 15 billion years
ago from a cosmological singularity - a state in which the temperature and
density were infinitely high (which actually means that the current laws of
physics did not apply then). As the Universe expanded, it gradually cooled.
The main evidence in establishing the Big Bang theory as the preeminent
theory of cosmology was the discovery of microwave background radiation in
1965. (by Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories). It is
considered that this radiation is remainder of initial cosmic fire. The Big
Bang theory also explains the abundances of hydrogen, helium and other
elements in the Universe.
However, the further development of the theory left several complicated
problems uncovered, the most intriguing being those of very existence of the
Big Bang and the timing of expansion. One could ask what arose first: the
Universe or the laws determining its evolution? How could all the different
parts of Universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the
initial command?..etc..
There is also a problem of the flatness of space. General theory of
relativity suggests that space may be very curved, but observations show that
our Universe is flat. The results of observations differ from theoretical
expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude. A similar difference
between theory and observations concerns the size of the Universe. An
important problem is concerning the distribution of matter in the Universe.
The Universe seems to be homogeneous on large scales, but it incorporates
important deviations from homogeneity as stars and galaxies...
These and other problems led cosmologists to search solutions in different
models of our Universe.
The Inflationary Theory
-----------------------
The inflationary theory states that the Universe went through a stage of
inflation. During that time the Cosmos became exponentially large within an
infinitesimal fraction of a second. At the end of that period, the Universe
continued its evolution according to the Big Bang model. Recent versions of
inflationary theory say that instead of being an expanding ball of fire the
Universe is a huge growing fractal which consists of many inflating balls
producing new inflating balls, which in turn are producing more inflating
balls, ad infinitum.
Quantum Scalar Fields and Expansion of the Universe
---------------------------------------------------
Quantum scalar fields are not the matter of everyday life. Nevertheless, they
play a crucial role in cosmology as well as in particle physics, providing a
mechanism that generates the rapid inflation of the Universe.
The theory says that scalar fields fill the Universe and mark their presence
by affecting properties of elementary particles. If a scalar field interacts
with the W and Z particles (which are responsible for the weak force) they
become heavy. Particles that do not interact with the scalar field, such as
photons (which mediate the electromagnetic force), remain light. To describe
elementary particle physics, physicists begin with the theory in which all
particles initially are light and in which no fundamental difference between
weak and electromagnetic interactions exists. This difference arises only
later, when the Universe expands and becomes filled by various scalar fields.
The process by which the fundamental forces separate is called symmetry
breaking.
The particular value of the scalar field that appears in the Universe is
determined by the position of the minimum of its potential energy. According
to Einstein's theory of gravity, the energy of the scalar field might have
caused the Universe to expand very rapidly. The expansion slowed down when
the scalar field reached the minimum of its potential energy. The scalar
field began to oscillate near that minimum. As the scalar field oscillated,
it lost energy, giving it up in the form of elementary particles. These
particles interacted with one another and eventually settled down to some
equilibrium temperature. From this time on, the standard Big Bang theory is
able to describe the evolution of the Universe.
Chaotic Inflation
-----------------
Andrei Linde realized in 1985. that inflation is a naturally emerging feature
in many theories of elementary particles, including the simplest model of the
scalar field. There is no need for quantum gravity effects, phase
transitions, supercooling or even the standard assumption that the Universe
originally was hot. One just considers all possible kinds and values of
scalar field in the early Universe and then checks to see if any of them
leads to inflation. Those places where inflation does not occur remain small.
Those domains where inflation takes place become large and dominate the total
volume of the Universe. The disturbances in the scalar field (quantum
fluctuations) cause the density perturbations in the Universe that are
crucial for the subsequent formation of galaxies. Because the quantum scalar
fields can take arbitrary values in the early Universe, this scenario is
called chaotic inflation.
Predictions of Inflationary Theory
----------------------------------
Inflationary theory predicts that the Universe should be extremely flat and
so far observational data are consistent with this prediction.
Density perturbations produced during inflation affect the distribution of
matter in the Universe. Furthermore, they may be accompanied by gravitational
waves. Both density perturbations and gravitational waves make their imprint
on the microwave background radiation. They render the temperature of this
radiation slightly different in various places in the universe. This
nonuniformity was found by COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite.
Theory of Self - Reproducing Inflationary Universe
--------------------------------------------------
One can visualize quantum fluctuations of the scalar field in an inflationary
Universe as waves. They first moved in all possible directions and then froze
on top of one another. Each frozen wave slightly increased the scalar field
in some parts of the Universe and decreased it in others. Those places of the
Universe (which are extremely rare) where newly frozen waves persistently
increased the scalar field could be very important, because such rare domains
of the Universe where the field "jumps" high enough begin exponentially
expanding with ever increasing speed. The higher the scalar field "jumps",
the faster the Universe expands. Very soon those rare domains will acquire a
much greater volume than other domains.
>From this theory it follows that if the Universe contains at least one
inflationary domain of a sufficiently large size, it begins unceasingly
producing new inflationary domains. Inflation in each particular point may
end quickly, but many other places will continue to expand. In essence, one
inflationary Universe sprouts other inflationary "bubbles", which in turn
produce other inflationary "bubbles". This process keeps going as a chain
reaction, producing a fractallike pattern of Universe.
In this scenario the Universe as a whole is immortal. Each particular part of
the Universe may stem from a singularity somewhere in the past, and it may
end up in a singularity somewhere in the future. It is interesting that this
theory does not exclude the Big Bang model. In fact, the Big Bang model is a
part of the inflationary model.
Realistic Models and Implications
---------------------------------
The simplest inflationary model consider only one scalar field which has only
one minimum of its potential energy. Realistic models of elementary particles
consider many kinds of scalar fields. The potential energy of these scalar
fields may have several different minima. This condition means that the same
theory, as a result, may give different laws of low - energy physics. Such
complexities in the scalar field mean that after inflation the Universe may
become divided into exponentially large domains that have different laws of
low - energy physics.
If this model is correct, then physics alone cannot provide a complete
explanation for all properties of our portion of the Universe. The same
physical theory may yield large parts of the Universe that have diverse
properties. In some inflationary models, quantum fluctuations are so strong
that even the number of dimensions of space and time can change. According to
this scenario, we find ourselves inside a four - dimensional domain with our
kind of physical laws, not because domains with different dimensionality and
with alternative properties are impossible or improbable, but simply because
our kind of life cannot exist in other domains.
Critics and Conclusions
-----------------------
The main objection to the article is that the author left a little space to
the explanation of the model of self - reproducing inflationary Universe
itself, talking more about the problems of Big Bang theory, history and
basics of inflationary theory. This review tried to follow the way Andrei
Linde originally presented the subject.
Compliments go to excellent graphics accompanying the text. Illustrations are
results of computer simulations performed by Andrei Linde and his son Dmitri
on one of Silicon Graphics' (Los Angeles, U.S.A.) most powerful computers.
Those computer simulations left the open question about possibility to create
the Universe in laboratory instead on the screen of a computer, although such
a notion is highly speculative. Considering possible consequences of such an
attempt (which puts the cosmologists in the position of God) and summarizing
the experience of simulating self - reproducing Universe, Linde asks
ingeniously: "Is it conceivable that our own Universe was created by a
physicist - hacker?"
The evolution of inflationary theory has given rise to a completely new
cosmological paradigm which differs considerably from the old Big Bang theory
and even from the first versions of the inflationary scenario. In it the
Universe appears to be both chaotic and homogeneous, expanding and
stationary. Our cosmic "home" grows, fluctuates and eternally reproduces
itself in all possible forms, as if adjusting itself for all possible types
of life that it can support. It is possible that understanding all the
properties of our region of the Universe will require, besides a knowledge of
physics, a deep investigation of our own nature, perhaps even including the
nature of our consciousness.
One can draw some optimism from this theory, the optimism which is very
important nowadays, considering the problems of the world we are living on.
The model of self - reproducing inflationary Universe states that even if
human race would be foolish enough to destroy itself (and possibly this
planet) there will ever be other places in the Universe where life will
emerge again and again, in all its possible forms...
Editor's note:
--------------
Stephen W. Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" was used as a help in
writing this review. Also, I would like to thank to Mladen Matev, Ph.D
student on Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, U.S.A, for his valuable comments.
~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@
What really interests me is whether
God had any choice in the creation
of the world.
- Albert Einstein -
~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@~~@@
Interesting Book:
SCIENTIFIC STORIES
==================
(A Plane World; What is the Fourth Dimension?; The Persian King)
by
Charles Howard Hinton
This peculiar book was written more than hundred years ago. The author,
Charles Howard Hinton, was a mysterious person, an English eccentric, who is
mostly forgotten and omitted in biographic reviews. His name is mentioned
only occasionally in a few esoteric publications (such as Ouspensky's
"Tertium Organum", 1920.). There are indications that Herbert G. Wells might
have known Hinton's work when writing his much better known "The Time
Machine" (1895.). The short note written by the publisher of the first
edition of "Scientific Stories" (1888.) says that the author left the
manuscript shortly before leaving England, going to a "far and unknown fate".
It seems that the book is Hinton's last message to the world, before leaving
it. His further destiny is mystery - suicide or escape to fourth dimension?
Hinton was somewhat obsessed with exploring the fourth dimension. He had a
little shop in London where he offered various toys (very cheap) composed of
wooden pieces. Every piece had specific shape, color and its own peculiar
name. With those pieces one could make pyramids, cylinders, cubes, prisms,
etc. according to predefined rules. Moving different parts of so composed
figure one would actually perform mental exercises to understand the fourth
dimension.
First two stories in the book are also intended to be mental exercises. The
story about the Persian King is a complex story with elements from
philosophy, mathematics and ethics. All three stories are allegories. They
have a hidden meaning and Hinton did not leave any clue for it.
The allegories are usually used for teaching or explaining ideas. The lesson
I have learned from these three stories was not the one I expected. Actually,
I do not know now what I was really expected, but I certainly did not expect
that I will find so many parallels with contemporary problems in artificial
intelligence and artificial life research. It is the reason why I would like
to recommend this book as a good reading to everybody interested in
artificial life or artificial intelligence subjects.
A Plane World
-------------
The story about a two - dimensional world is Hinton's attempt to help the
reader's imagination accept four-dimensional world. The description of Plane
World is very detailed, rich with carefully designed diagrams. Nevertheless,
it is not easy to follow the author's narration, because the reader has to
completely abandon her conception of a three-dimensional world.
Hinton introduces the reader step by step into the two-dimensional world,
explaining first some physical truths about Plane World. Later he determines
its position in the Universe ("...at the place where sunbeams falling on the
Earth in January die and unify with the darkness..."). That world is the
bubble on whose surface cosmic dust formed "continents" where two-dimensional
people live. Hinton describes in detail those "plane people", their
characteristics, living habits, emotions, the way on which their homes are
built, their vehicles, their science, etc.
The story about Plane World ends suddenly with the presentation of some basic
physical laws on the way the "plane people" perceive them. At that moment the
reader is supposed to be already part of the Plane World, seeing it from the
perspective of "plane people".
What is the Fourth Dimension?
-----------------------------
This very short text represents the logical conclusion of the previous story
about Plane World. If the reader leaves three-dimensional perception and
accepts two-dimensional reasoning, it should be easy to transfer to the four-
dimensional world. However, Hinton does not ask the reader to make that
transition. He rather warns about dangers of uncontrolled insight in "higher
realities". He admits the importance of future development of science, but
also emphasizes the importance of preserving mental stability .
One may ask why contemplation about two-dimensional or four-dimensional
worlds is relevant to the modern study of artificial life or artificial
intelligence. Both disciplines leave some questions open, such as: What is
really alive? What is intelligent behavior? Hinton actually says that there
are no limits for (intelligent) life. We are only limited by our perception
and willingness to accept realities different from the one we know.
Hinton did not have powerful "toys" such as the computers of today. Computer
simulations,computer animation or virtual reality are much more powerful
tools today than his wooden toys hundred years ago. One can make whole worlds
inside the computer. Yet, Hinton's warning about the importance of keeping
mental stability in the researching of new "worlds" is still valid.
Exploration of "different realities" goes much faster today than in time
Hinton wrote his stories. It means that the dangers of uncontrolled insights
in "new dimensions" are greater today. Mental stability of explorers may be
seriously endangered without adequate control. The warning can be applied not
only in the fields of artificial life and artificial intelligence, but also
on everything happening in "brave new world" which we call Cyberspace.
The Persian King
----------------
This story has the style of the stories from "1001 Nights", but it is
actually a parable about life, creation and morality.
The Persian King, hunting with his courtiers, comes to a narrow ravine. Only
he succeeds in passing to the other side. He enters a mysterious valley.
There he meets Demiurge, the Creator of Life. Then the story begins...
It would not be fair to potential readers of Hinton's book to tell the story
here. It is enough to say that the King learns from Demiurge how to start
life in the empty valley where he finds only two apathetic children in the
beginning. However, the method of the valley revival is interesting. The King
has to learn complicated and difficult technique of suffering the pain, so
the habitants of the valley could have enough pleasure to allow them to be
alive and to rebuild a normal life in the valley. The basis of the method is
the fact that the beings with the ability to create follow the pleasure and
avoid the pain in their deeds. If the amounts of pain and pleasure are the
same they become apathetic and cannot do anything.
The underlying philosophy is that everything in the Universe, every particle,
has the ability to feel pain and pleasure and nothing can move if the
pleasure is equal to the pain. Life and movement can exist only if the
Creator of Life makes an imbalance between pain and pleasure, taking the pain
on himself.
In some of its parts, this story is written in a way which reminds modern
reader of particular computer games or artificial life simulations. The story
gives a lot of material to think about. For example, what is a life? What is
the main initiator of life? Is the imbalance between pleasure and pain really
so important? What would happen if creators of "worlds" inside the computer
could feel the pain of their "creations"? Would it bring to the new models of
human behavior? Could such simulations improve the quality of everyday life?
Is it possible for human beings to learn how to not hurt each others?
...etc...
The book "Scientific Stories" does not give many answers and leaves many
questions. The author, Charles Howard Hinton, has for many years been in an
other dimension, and we cannot ask him for the answers even if they existed.
The only thing to do is to read the book and try to find some answers by
ourselves and for ourselves.
It might be somewhat difficult to find "Scientific Stories", but I hope that
a little searching through the bookshelves with esoteric or fiction
literature will bring this excellent book to you. Enjoy the reading!
&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^
Let us forget the lapse of time,
let us forget the conflict of opinions.
Let us make our appeal to the infinite,
and take up our positions there.
- Chuang Tzu -
&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^&&***^^
____________________________________________________
/ / | |
/ |\__/| / | THAT'S ALL FOLKS !! |
/~~~~~~\ / \ | NEW "ALIVE" IS COMING NEXT |
~\( * * )/~~\( 0 0 )/~ | HOST TO YOU SOON !! |
( O ) ( O ) |______________________________|
\______/ \______/
@/ \@ @/ \@
