Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:50:39 05/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2005 at 16:43:06, Volker Pittlik wrote: >On May 31, 2005 at 16:17:57, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >... >>Your arguement that >>that leaves only one possibility - the author put it there - is logical. But it >>makes absolutely no sense for him to do that. I don't have any explanations, >>just the feeling that there is something going on here that we don't understand. > >I agree especially with the last part. Let's take a look at the possible >consequences. To clone a program damages someone's reputation. It is a violation >of copyright. If you are taken to the court for that the penalty depends on what >you copied (copied a book in a public library: who really cares; copying >copyrighted software: maybe a fine; copying a bunch of 100 dollar bills: most >likely prison if you only _try_ it). > >But isn't spreading malicious software intentionally a crime in itself? Haven't >there been convictions just for intentionally spreading worms in the past? >Therefore I can't think of any circumstances why anyone could intentionally >spread a worm on his website. I believe there must be another explanation. > >Volker I do not express an opinion about the worm. Only some notes: 1)People do not need a reason to spread worms. There are simply bad people. 2)There is another explanation that does not blame Rafael Peņa of putting worm intentionally but does blame someone else of doing it(and that person is smart enough to hide). It is possible that Rafael Peņa did not compile Fafis but someone else did it and that person added a worm. In that case Rafael Peņa's mistake except releasing a program that he did not compile is only trusting another person that he does not know. In that case he is not quilty of spreading malicious software intentionally. Uri
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.