CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
fer...@ovnet.com
whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
permanently.
Iolo Davidson
> I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
> whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
There are no viruses that do this.
Whether it is possible for a virus or any other software to
damage hardware has been hotly debated in here many times. But
the fact remains: there are no viruses that do this.
> Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
> subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
> permanently.
There are no viruses that do this.
--
THE CANNONEERS USED TIN SHEARS
WITH HAIRY EARS UNTIL THEY FOUND
ON WIRY WHISKERS Burma-Shave
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com (fer...@ovnet.com) writes:
>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>
>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>permanently.
Why do you want to know? I've always wondered why people ask this
question.
--
Dr Alan Solomon, the man behind Dr Solomon's Anti Virus Toolkit
US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
Business: drso...@drsolomon.com http://www.drsolomon.com
Personal: drs...@ibmpcug.co.uk http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
AOL: DrAS...@aol.com Compuserve 101377,3677
Henri Delger
>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it,
>about whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part
>of a computer. Could someone please tell me where I can
>find out info on the above subject, and/or a list of virus's
>known to damage hardware permanently.
I've tested many hundreds of PC computer viruses, and have
never seen any evidence of a computer virus "physically"
damaging hardware, and all the literature I've read on the
subject conforms to that. A virus "exists" in RAM, and when
you shut the power off, it doesn't exist. Viruses do write
copies of themselves to disks, and can pay a return visit to
RAM that way. But writing to a disk is not destructive to
anything but the data on it, and any virus itself can be
written over.
Some viruses can interfere with computer operations,
such as disabling a COM port. But this is a temporary
effect, eliminated when the virus is eliminated. The worst
"damage" that I can conceive of would be an IDE hard disk
temporarily put out of action by some viruses under certain
conditions. But even that is not permanent, and nothing is
damaged physically. Properly low-level formatted, the disk
is brought back to normal when the data wiped out by the
virus is restored.
From time to time, people have made claims to the effect
that there are viruses which damage hardware, even to the
extent of "burning a hole in a monitor screen," which would
be rather melodramatic, if true, but it isn't. I suppose
one could make a case for a disk drive to be damaged, but
not directly by instructions written in the virus. Some
viruses cause the drive to be read/written to continuously.
If the user sat there while the disk light was on for
days or weeks, the mechanism could fail. First, that's
rather far-fetched. Second, that could happen with a disk
lacking a virus. Third, I'd consider such a failure to be
caused by faulty design or old age of the equipment, instead
of something the virus "did."
Hardware damage can be inflicted by software in some
rare cases, but no viruses are known to be direct causes of
it. Such hardware as the original Hercules graphics card,
some MFM hard disks/controllers, RLL drives, and floppy disk
drives can be damaged by software under certain conditions.
But it's always a better bet that someting other than a
virus is the problem.
In testing many hundreds of viruses, I've had to format
the hard disk sometimes, but the isolated PC I use still
works just fine. I've never seen any written substantiation
of any virus doing physical damage. To be convinced to the
contrary, I'll have to see it happen.
For more information on viruses, how to get rid of
them, and to download F-Prot (for PC-compatibles) or
Disinfectant (for Macintoshes), go to my Home Page:
http://pages.prodigy.com/virushelp
Regards, Henri Delger
email: henri_...@prodigy.com
George Wenzel
>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
Hooboy... here we go with this thread again. No, there is no virus that
causes damage to hardware, nor is it likely for one to exist. Hardware is
built to strict specifications to prevent software from causing damage to it.
>Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>permanently.
There are no viruses that can cause any physical damage to hardware - only
data. It is possible with some outdated monitors and hard drives (ones that
aren't in use today) to cause damage to them with software, but these sorts of
problems are long since corrected.
Regards,
George Wenzel
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ George Wenzel <gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)Student of Wado Kai Karate
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-' U of A Karate Club
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' HTTP://www.ualberta.ca/~gwenzel/
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' PGP Public key available on request
Moshe Litvin
Wenzel) wrote:
>In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com wrote:
>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>
>Hooboy... here we go with this thread again.
Yes, but risking causing another long and tedious thread I would like
to state the minority opinion on the subject.
>No, there is no virus that causes damage to hardware,
Indeed.
>nor is it likely for one to exist.
That's depends about how do you define the problem. If you ask weather
in the next 50 years there would be a virus that on some (specific)
computer would damage hardware I believe that the answer is -- almost
certainly. But if you ask if there would be a virus that could damage
hardware in your computer or in a significant percent of the computers
then I think that George is correct.
>Hardware is
>built to strict specifications to prevent software from causing damage to it.
Hardware engineers try to design the hardware that way. But they are
only human and therefore not always perfect.
[snip]
> It is possible with some outdated monitors and hard drives (ones that
>aren't in use today) to cause damage to them with software, but these sorts of
>problems are long since corrected.
What about flash ROM? a flash ROM is a kind of memory that can be
programmed by software but can hold it's content without power and
thus act as ROM. One of the problems is that it can only be
reprogrammed a limited number of times. When it acts like a ROM it is
not a problem. How many times would you like to reprogram your BIOS or
your modem ROM. But if there is no kind of write protect malware can
reprogram the flash ROM enough times to damage it.
But flash BIOS posses another danger. As Rob Slade wrote in
comp.virus:
> [In the AV field, we have been aware of the potential dangers of Flash
> BIOS for some time. I have not yet checked for the report mentioned in
> comp.firewalls, but if this does turn out to be real it will be
> confirmation of the danger. (It is quite possible that the report
> concerns a less dangerous piece of malware, such as a trojan.) - rms]
>RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Monday 1 April 1996 Volume 17 : Issue 96
>Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 15:14:09 WET
>From: "J.R.Valverde (jr)" <jrval...@samba.cnb.uam.es>
>Subject: Flash ROM virus
>A recent posting in comp.firewalls describes a new kind of PC virus.
>This one zaps the flash BIOS of Pentium motherboards.
>What makes it more interesting is that on the Endeavour EV-2 motherboards
>this behaviour is a killer, it renders it unusable; see:
> http://www.mrbios.com/ftp/big_risk.txt
>As it seems, this particular motherboard features: "(1) Its flash ROM does
>NOT implement a write-protected failsafe recovery "boot-block". (2) The
>flash ROM is soldered directly onto the system board. If anything at all
>happens to the flash that causes it to be inoperable, no practical method
>exists to restore it. No "recovery" utility can be run if the system won't
>boot."
>I can't but wonder what kind of demential design gave birth to such a
>sensitive piece of hardware: the BIOS ROM in a PC is a fundamental part of
>it: without it the machine is totally unusable. A FlashROM is by definition
>writable, and as such one can expect that a variety of circumstances may
>erase or rewrite it with bad data. And there are many!
>Not having a protected recovery block is bad enough. But soldering it so it
>can't be replaced is something I can't but qualify as "evil" (or "greedy" at
>least).
>The RISKs? Just let your imagination run wild: viruses like the
>'Flash_killed' one, programming errors (yes, I've zapped the BIOS config of
>a PC this way a couple of times), power failures, using the wrong BIOS image
>or loader for an update, etc... Any of them (and many more) will render the
>machine totally worthless.
Thus not only outdated hardware is dangerous but also "soon to be
outdated" hardware. That is hardware using new technologies, where the
risk hasn't been thought yet. As hardware becomes more complex it
would be harder and harder to think about all the possibilities and to
design it safely.
As I said earlier this is a minority opinion. It seems that the
majority of the people in this newsgroup think that there would not be
a hardware damaging virus. I hope that the error is mine.
Just my 2c
Moshe Litvin
stdxxxx
In article <43...@chartridge.win-uk.net>, drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net
says...
>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>>
>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>permanently.
and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that a computer virus COULD do
damage to computer hardware, much in the same way that a car can be revved in
fourth gear for some time, and it will damage the engine.
At least that is what he says. Moshe Litvin has contrary opinions.
>
>Why do you want to know? I've always wondered why people ask this
>question.
Answering a question with a question, eh Dr.? Why not just answer the
question. Curiosity in any form is to be rewarded.
George Wenzel
In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com>, std...@if.uidaho.edu (stdxxxx) wrote:
>>>Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
>>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>>permanently.
>Well, in John Mcafee's book "Computer Viruses, Trojan Horses, Data Diddlers,
>and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that a computer virus COULD do
>damage to computer hardware, much in the same way that a car can be revved in
>fourth gear for some time, and it will damage the engine.
>
>At least that is what he says. Moshe Litvin has contrary opinions.
Of course, that isn't really truly damaging hardware - it's just running
hardware the way it's supposed to be for a long time. It might shorten the
life of the hardware, but it certainly wouldn't 'destroy' it.
Regards,
George Wenzel
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ George Wenzel <gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)Student of Wado Kai Karate
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-' University of Alberta Karate Club
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' NETSCAPE <tm> GOLD RUSH CONTEST WINNING PAGE:
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' http://www.ualberta.ca/~gwenzel/
Lameluck
In article <829997...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net> fer...@ovnet.com writes:
>
>> I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>> whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>
>
>Whether it is possible for a virus or any other software to
>damage hardware has been hotly debated in here many times. But
>the fact remains: there are no viruses that do this.
>
>> subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>> permanently.
>
>
>--
>THE CANNONEERS USED TIN SHEARS
> WITH HAIRY EARS UNTIL THEY FOUND
> ON WIRY WHISKERS
Burma-Shave
HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
the virus that destroyes a hard drive changes a BIOS setting that makes
the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com>, stdxxxx (std...@if.uidaho.edu) writes:
>In article <43...@chartridge.win-uk.net>, drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net
>says...
>>
>>
>>In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com
>>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>>>
>>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>>permanently.
>and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that a computer virus COULD do
>damage to computer hardware, much in the same way that a car can be revved in
>fourth gear for some time, and it will damage the engine.
Well, John isn't a techie, of course. Anyhow, there aren't any such
viruses today, that damage today's hardware, for sure.
>
>At least that is what he says. Moshe Litvin has contrary opinions.
>>
>
>>Why do you want to know? I've always wondered why people ask this
>>question.
>
>Answering a question with a question, eh Dr.? Why not just answer the
>question. Curiosity in any form is to be rewarded.
Then why do you answer my question with a question, instead of rewarding
my curiosity? Answering a question with a question is something I learned
from my mother, along with lots of yiddish words like "tsurus" and
"bragus". Before you ask what these words mean:
Tsurus is trouble, only more so, as in "I've got fourteen different
viruses on my network, half an hour to fix it in, my boss breathing down
my neck about why I haven't fixed it yet, and I've just found out that I
can't apply for another job for the next three years"
Bragus is to argument, as thermonuclear war is to skirmish.
--
Dr Alan Solomon, the man behind Dr Solomon's Anti Virus Toolkit
US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
Files: http://www.drsolomon.com CIS: GO DRSOLOMON AOL: VIRUS
Email: drso...@drsolomon.com CIS: 101377,3677 AOL: DrASolly
Personal: drs...@ibmpcug.co.uk http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
MLookabaug
In article <4lpsv5$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Lame...@ix.netcom.com
(Lameluck) writes:
>yes, a virus can damage a systems hardware, mainly, the monitor, and the
>HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
>machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
>the virus that destroyes a hard drive changes a BIOS setting that makes
>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
Been there. Done that. You really will have to do much better.
The last time this thread popped up, it covered several months, and
several hundred posts. You will have a difficult time coming up with
*anything* that wasn't discussed before. You might pick a thread with
more potential, such as the one in which Dr. Solomon describes the correct
procedure for using a machine gun on someone who is rushing you while
throwing punches. ;-)
(P.S. - thanks for the socks, Graham :)
Mark Lookabaugh
George Wenzel
In article <4lpsv5$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, ;ame...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>yes, a virus can damage a systems hardware, mainly, the monitor, and the
>HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
>machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
Fine. Prove it. Send me a file that will damage my monitor. Do you actually
know this as a fact, or are you just making unsupported claims? You must
actually have facts to back up opinion, especially in this particular topic...
>the virus that destroyes a hard drive changes a BIOS setting that makes
>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
>
Considering the heads don't TOUCH the platter, I find this just a tad hard to
believe...
George Wenzel
In article <4lrfq6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mlook...@aol.com (MLookabaug) wrote:
>>yes, a virus can damage a systems hardware, mainly, the monitor, and the
>>HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
>>machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
>>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
>
>
>The last time this thread popped up, it covered several months, and
>several hundred posts. You will have a difficult time coming up with
>*anything* that wasn't discussed before. You might pick a thread with
>more potential, such as the one in which Dr. Solomon describes the correct
>procedure for using a machine gun on someone who is rushing you while
>throwing punches. ;-)
But if the person is within punching range when you pull out the gun, they'd
probably kill you before you got to the trigger... :-)
>(P.S. - thanks for the socks, Graham :)
>
I'm wearing my pair right now... quite comfortable. :-)
Iolo Davidson
In article <4lpsv5$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
;ame...@ix.netcom.com "Lameluck" writes:
> In article <829997...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk
> says...
> >
> >In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net> fer...@ovnet.com writes:
> >
> >> I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
> >> whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
> >
> >There are no viruses that do this.
> >
> >Whether it is possible for a virus or any other software to
> >damage hardware has been hotly debated in here many times. But
> >the fact remains: there are no viruses that do this.
> yes, a virus can damage a systems hardware, mainly, the monitor, and the
> HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
> machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
Name one virus that does this. People *claim* this a lot. If it
is possible, there ought to be a virus that does it. Name it.
> the virus that destroyes a hard drive changes a BIOS setting that makes
> the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
That is complete nonsense. There is no such "BIOS setting". Why
do you suppose that the manufacturer would provide a simple way
to break his disk? Again, name the virus.
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4lrfq6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MLookabaug (mlook...@aol.com) writes:
>In article <4lpsv5$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Lame...@ix.netcom.com
>(Lameluck) writes:
>
>>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
>
Yes, I especially like the virus that makes the HD spin faster than it
should. Almost as good as the virus that makes a hammer leap out of your
toolbox and repeatedly smash itself into the CPU chip, causing
motherboard failure. Uses a little-known assembler instruction:
MOV CPU, HAMMER
fer...@ovnet.com
drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net (Dr Alan Solomon) wrote:
>
>In article <4l9np5$e...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com (fer...@ovnet.com) writes:
>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>>
>>Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>permanently.
>Why do you want to know? I've always wondered why people ask this
>question.
>--
>Dr Alan Solomon, the man behind Dr Solomon's Anti Virus Toolkit
>US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
>Business: drso...@drsolomon.com http://www.drsolomon.com
>Personal: drs...@ibmpcug.co.uk http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
>AOL: DrAS...@aol.com Compuserve 101377,3677
Why do I want to know? Basically for threat assessment. I would like
to be knowledgable enough that if I ever get a virus, I would know, or
could know where to go, to find out whether a certain virus can
possibly do 3?4?5?6? thousand dollars worth of hardware damage
compared to maximum damage of just the annoyance of having to fire up
my back up tape system. Guess you could say I would like to have the
knowledge to recognize if and when Im ever attacked if Im being
attacked by the neighborhood kid with a super squirter water pistol,
or one of America's 10 most wanted criminals with a machine gun.
Knowledge of the enemy's potential would give me a feel for the level
of precaution I should take. I would prefer to have a rational
knowledge of what a virus can do, as opposed to an irrational fear.
I have a friend that is not allowed to download software off the
internet, because she has told me that she has had two hard drives
totally destroyed because of a certain virus she picked up from the
net.
Next I have someone tell me that the only possible physical damage a
virus can do, is damage to old outdated hard drives.
Then I hear something about a flashable chip can be wiped out, by a
virus and do thousands of dollars of damage.
Then I run across this newsgroup, where I feel honored to be in the
presence of what appears to be very informed people, and distinguished
experts(especially you Dr. S), and decided to post the question, with
the expectation of finally having a difinitive answer, if there is a
simple answer to my question.
Thanks
Ferret
P.S. I find it kinda impressive that you participate in this
newsgroup Dr. S. I can't even reach some company's I deal with
(specifically US Robotics) janitor, customer support,ect, via email.
Very impressive when someone such as yourself takes the time to touch
base with the public.
Iolo Davidson
In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com> std...@if.uidaho.edu
"stdxxxx" writes:
> Well, in John Mcafee's book "Computer Viruses, Trojan Horses,
> Data Diddlers, and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that
> a computer virus COULD do damage to computer hardware, much in
> the same way that a car can be revved in fourth gear for some
> time, and it will damage the engine.
"Revved in fourth gear for some time"? Sounds like McAfee
doesn't understand motorcars, either. Revving a car "in gear" is
more normally referred to as "driving along the road".
The simple way to establish that viruses can damage hardware is
to name one virus that actually does it. No one seems able to do
this.
> At least that is what he says.
So one would discount the statement, by analogy, since the
analogy is nonsensical.
> Moshe Litvin has contrary opinions.
Does he know anything about driving a car?
> Curiosity in any form is to be rewarded.
I'm curious about your credit card numbers and bank balance.
Let's have 'em.
Daniel L. Bates
In article <44...@chartridge.win-uk.net>, drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net
>
>
>In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com>, stdxxxx (std...@if.uidaho.edu)
writes:
>>In article <43...@chartridge.win-uk.net>, drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net
>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>(fer...@ovnet.com) writes:
>>>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>>>>
>>>>Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
>>>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>>>permanently.
Diddlers,
>>and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that a computer virus COULD
do
>>damage to computer hardware, much in the same way that a car can be revved
in
>>fourth gear for some time, and it will damage the engine.
>
>viruses today, that damage today's hardware, for sure.
>
control registers.
Gord
Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com> std...@if.uidaho.edu
> "stdxxxx" writes:
>
>> the same way that a car can be revved in fourth gear for some
>> time, and it will damage the engine.
>
>doesn't understand motorcars, either. Revving a car "in gear" is
>more normally referred to as "driving along the road".
Well, not if the car is at a stand-still. A small engined car would have a
tough time doing anything starting in top gear. And if it's an automatic,
and you do whatever to make it difficult to turn the wheels, revving it in
gear can rip the turbines in your torque converter.
WCDove
>Subject: Re: CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
>From: Lame...@ix.netcom.com (Lameluck)
>Date: 26 Apr 1996 07:11:33 GMT
<snip>
>yes, a virus can damage a systems hardware, mainly, the monitor, and the
>HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
>machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
Have you demonstrated this on recent vintage equipment or is this
theorizing?
If demonstrated, then some monitor subsystem designers need to have their
EEs stripped from them for failing to use either common sense or basic
design practice.
>the virus that destroyes a hard drive changes a BIOS setting that makes
>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
>
BIOS settings affect the speed of a servomotor?
New one on me: we always had to change the motor or at least the integral
tachometer in order to do more than adjust the speed over the design
range.
Or maybe the servos in HDDs are a totally different technology from the
servos used in motion control?
Of course, you could maybe overdrive a micro stepper a bit -- until the
mechanical hysteresis of the motor stalled the thing out around 10% over
the max stepping rate.
"the heads cut through the disks [sic]" Oh come on!
George Wenzel
In article <4ltf8o$h...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com wrote:
>>Why do you want to know? I've always wondered why people ask this
>>question.
>
>Why do I want to know? Basically for threat assessment.
Rest assured that no viruses cause any damage to hardware.
>I would like
>to be knowledgable enough that if I ever get a virus, I would know, or
>could know where to go, to find out whether a certain virus can
>possibly do 3?4?5?6? thousand dollars worth of hardware damage
>compared to maximum damage of just the annoyance of having to fire up
>my back up tape system.
Using a good anti-virus package (many of them are shareware) will protect you
from any infections you may come across. The threat of a virus damaging
hardware has been proposed, but nobody has found a way to do it, and since
hardware is designed to strict specifications, it's extremely unlikely that
one will ever exist.
>Guess you could say I would like to have the
>knowledge to recognize if and when Im ever attacked if Im being
>attacked by the neighborhood kid with a super squirter water pistol,
>or one of America's 10 most wanted criminals with a machine gun.
The analogy isn't really the same, since the defence for viruses is pretty
much the same no matter what the virus - common sense, the advice of others
(i.e. this group), and a good anti-virus package.
>Knowledge of the enemy's potential would give me a feel for the level
>of precaution I should take. I would prefer to have a rational
>knowledge of what a virus can do, as opposed to an irrational fear.
As I've said, rest assured that a virus can't damage your hardware. Many
people have proposed the idea of a virus that could do hardware damage, but
nobody has substantiated the claim.
>
>I have a friend that is not allowed to download software off the
>internet, because she has told me that she has had two hard drives
>totally destroyed because of a certain virus she picked up from the
>net.
Your friend is either misinformed, or is lying to you. There are reasons for
hard drive failure, but I suspect that she simply ended up corrupting
something and thinking her hard-drive was totally destroyed, when it wasn't.
>Next I have someone tell me that the only possible physical damage a
>virus can do, is damage to old outdated hard drives.
Perhaps an old 20meg hard drive. Not a lot of people use those things any
more. There were also some serious problems with early IDE drives and
low-level formats, but that problem has been fixed in current drives as well.
Through all these problems, no virus has appeared that causes any sort of
hardware damage.
>Then I hear something about a flashable chip can be wiped out, by a
>virus and do thousands of dollars of damage.
This is purely theoretical - there is no virus that can do this.
>
>Then I run across this newsgroup, where I feel honored to be in the
>presence of what appears to be very informed people, and distinguished
>experts(especially you Dr. S), and decided to post the question, with
>the expectation of finally having a difinitive answer, if there is a
>simple answer to my question.
There is basically a simple answer: No current virus can cause damage to
current hardware. There are exceptions with a few pieces of hardware that
might be defective, but by no means could a virus threaten the general
computing populace with hardware damage.
>P.S. I find it kinda impressive that you participate in this
>newsgroup Dr. S. I can't even reach some company's I deal with
>(specifically US Robotics) janitor, customer support,ect, via email.
>Very impressive when someone such as yourself takes the time to touch
>base with the public.
And to top that off, he doesn't even work for the company any more, except as
a consultant. There was a management buyout and some assorted dealings. I
don't doubt Dr. Solomon came out of the deal a richer man. :-)
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4lt45s$k...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) writes:
>In article <4lrfq6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mlook...@aol.com (MLookabaug) wrote:
>>>HDD. to damage the monitor, it would increase the refresh rate on a
>>>machine running a text based OS, subsiquently destroying the monitor.
>>>the HDD spinn faster than it should, and the heads cut through the disks
>>
>>
>>several hundred posts. You will have a difficult time coming up with
>>*anything* that wasn't discussed before. You might pick a thread with
>>more potential, such as the one in which Dr. Solomon describes the correct
>>procedure for using a machine gun on someone who is rushing you while
>>throwing punches. ;-)
>
>But if the person is within punching range when you pull out the gun, they'd
>probably kill you before you got to the trigger... :-)
The trick is, to have the gun already out. I guess. I've never used a
gun; you hold one end and the other end goes bang, right? And something
comes out of it very fast and bonks you on the head, right? Graham and I
used guns like that at the Cebit show. We got them at the magic shop.
--
Dr Alan Solomon, the man behind Dr Solomon's Anti Virus Toolkit
US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4ltf8o$h...@news.mountain.net>, fer...@ovnet.com (fer...@ovnet.com) writes:
>drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net (Dr Alan Solomon) wrote:
>
>>
>>>I downlaoded the L-Virus faq, and did not find any info in it, about
>>>whether a virus can do permanent damage to any part of a computer.
>>>
>>>Could someone please tell me where I can find out info on the above
>>>subject, and/or a list of virus's known to damage hardware
>>>permanently.
>
>>question.
>
>
>
>>Dr Alan Solomon, the man behind Dr Solomon's Anti Virus Toolkit
>>US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
>>Personal: drs...@ibmpcug.co.uk http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
>>AOL: DrAS...@aol.com Compuserve 101377,3677
>
>
>to be knowledgable enough that if I ever get a virus, I would know, or
>could know where to go, to find out whether a certain virus can
>possibly do 3?4?5?6? thousand dollars worth of hardware damage
>compared to maximum damage of just the annoyance of having to fire up
>my back up tape system.
Fair enough reason. OK, you can ignore the threat of hardware damage. But
the maximum damage isn't just having to restore a tape backup. Some
viruses corrupt your data slowly and gradually, so your backups will be
useless, too. Unless you go back a long time. In which case, they're out
of date. A much more likely threat, and more damaging (2gb drives cost a
couple of hundred bucks these days).
>Guess you could say I would like to have the
>knowledge to recognize if and when Im ever attacked if Im being
>attacked by the neighborhood kid with a super squirter water pistol,
>or one of America's 10 most wanted criminals with a machine gun.
>Knowledge of the enemy's potential would give me a feel for the level
>of precaution I should take. I would prefer to have a rational
>knowledge of what a virus can do, as opposed to an irrational fear.
Fair enough. Forget about hardware damage - there aren't any viruses that
do that. The argument about whether it's possible will rage for ever, but
the cold hard fact is, there aren't any. Whereas there are gradual data
corrupters.
>
>I have a friend that is not allowed to download software off the
>internet, because she has told me that she has had two hard drives
>totally destroyed because of a certain virus she picked up from the
>net.
She's wrong, unless by "destroyed" she means "data wiped". Which virus is
this, has she got a name for it?
>
>Next I have someone tell me that the only possible physical damage a
>virus can do, is damage to old outdated hard drives.
Correct. And there aren't any viruses that do that, anyway.
>
>Then I hear something about a flashable chip can be wiped out, by a
>virus and do thousands of dollars of damage.
Correct. But there aren't any viruses that do that.
>
>Then I run across this newsgroup, where I feel honored to be in the
>presence of what appears to be very informed people, and distinguished
>experts(especially you Dr. S), and decided to post the question, with
>the expectation of finally having a difinitive answer, if there is a
>simple answer to my question.
There are no simple answers, just endless arguments about this pareticular
question. However, there is one simple answer - there are no viruses
today, in the wild or in the zoo, that damage hardware.
>P.S. I find it kinda impressive that you participate in this
>newsgroup Dr. S. I can't even reach some company's I deal with
>(specifically US Robotics) janitor, customer support,ect, via email.
>Very impressive when someone such as yourself takes the time to touch
>base with the public.
The S&S corporate culture is, customer, customer, customer. If I ever
catch anyone saying "punter", I belt them round the ears. We have a
special award to staff for exceptional customer service, as judged by the
customer taking the trouble to write in and thank the person. Look after
your customers, and they'll see you all right; don't look after them, and
someone else will. It's a simple philosophy, well known, and rarely
applied.
Plus, I enjoy it.
Iolo Davidson
> I would like
> to be knowledgable enough that if I ever get a virus, I would know, or
> could know where to go, to find out whether a certain virus can
> possibly do 3?4?5?6? thousand dollars worth of hardware damage
> compared to maximum damage of just the annoyance of having to fire up
> my back up tape system.
There is no virus that damages hardware. It is a silly thing to
worry about anyway; as you note, a dead hard disk can be replaced
and restored from a backup at very little expense.
You want to talk damage, think about the damage that can be
caused to a business by a virus that makes small, unnoticed
changes in a company's database over a long period, changes which
are not discovered until the whole database is corrupt and
untrustworthy, and the changes have been going on for so long
that they are also in the backups.
> Guess you could say I would like to have the
> knowledge to recognize if and when Im ever attacked if Im being
> attacked by the neighborhood kid with a super squirter water pistol,
> or one of America's 10 most wanted criminals with a machine gun.
Hardware damage would be the water pistol, but there is no virus
that damages hardware. There are viruses that make many small,
unnoticeable changes in your priceless data.
> Knowledge of the enemy's potential would give me a feel for the level
> of precaution I should take. I would prefer to have a rational
> knowledge of what a virus can do, as opposed to an irrational fear.
I fail to understand why you would take fewer precautions against
a real threat to your data than against some fantasy told you by
a friend of a friend which is not all that dangerous compared to
the real threat anyway.
> I have a friend that is not allowed to download software off the
> internet, because she has told me that she has had two hard drives
> totally destroyed because of a certain virus she picked up from the
> net.
There are plenty of people around who will relay falsehoods.
I don't understand why people are always prepared to believe
nonsense from "someone told a friend of mine" and pass it on, but
simply will not believe the truth coming directly from those who
know what they are talking about.
> Next I have someone tell me that the only possible physical damage a
> virus can do, is damage to old outdated hard drives.
Do you still use a 20 Mbyte disk? I don't even know of a
verified case of an *obsolete* drive being damaged by a virus.
Some people make claims that such damage is possible in theory,
but I have never known it to be demonstrated.
> Then I hear something about a flashable chip can be wiped out, by a
> virus and do thousands of dollars of damage.
There is no virus that does this. Yes, flash bioses can be
reprogrammed. A virus could do the reprogramming just like the
reprogramming program could, if the virus writer knew how (and
the details of this are different for different makes of
motherboard) and if the write protect switch is set to write
enable. Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
"damage to hardware"? But anyway, there is no virus that does
this.
> Then I run across this newsgroup, where I feel honored to be in the
> presence of what appears to be very informed people, and distinguished
> experts(especially you Dr. S), and decided to post the question, with
> the expectation of finally having a difinitive answer, if there is a
> simple answer to my question.
Simple answer: There is no virus that damages hardware.
It is still interesting that people keep asking this question,
though. This fantasy of hardware damage people are so concerned
about is a trivial thing compared to the data damage that real,
existing, in-the-wild viruses can do. Your data is far more
valuable than the hardware you store it on.
Iolo Davidson
In article <4ltvd4$q...@excelsior.flash.net>
danb...@flash.net "Daniel L. Bates" writes:
> I believe some monitors can be blown up by improperly programming
> the VGA control registers.
Why do you believe this?
George Wenzel
>>Well, John isn't a techie, of course. Anyhow, there aren't any such
>>viruses today, that damage today's hardware, for sure.
>>
>control registers.
Then prove it. I believe that some monitors can be blown up using a pipe
bomb, and with adequate direction, I could probably do it (but I'm not that
sort of person). I think everybody here can agree that a pipe bomb would blow
up a monitor.
Improper programming, that's a different matter. If you can prove it, please
do so, but this thread has been around for years, and we've seen every which
way it's been argued. So far, nobody has been able to find out a way for
software to damage current hardware. This is assuming the person is using
properly manufactured, non-defective hardware.
Daniel L. Bates
In article <830697...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk says...
>> the VGA control registers.
>
>
publishing the same. Amoung these sources:
PC Underground - Unconventional Programming Topics
Bertelson Rasch & Hoffmann
printed Abacus Press Copyright 1995
Chapter 3 page 56
"In theory you can experiment with these values. However, you should be
careful with the timing registes (CRTC-Registers 0-7) since prolonged
operation with extreme values (the monitor will whistle like crazy) can
damage the monitor."
Same page
"PC Underground Note - This feature can be used by those with malicious
intent to damage someones monitor permanently. Therefore, we repeat: Use
caution... if your monitor whistles loudly switch it off immediatly... fast
action may save the monitor from permanent damage. It normally takes several
seconds before the monitor is damaged. If you try such experiments, we
recomment keeping one finger on the ON/OFF switch at all times just in
case."
The PC Architecture evolved with the assumption that the software running on
it is friendly and not malicious. An assumption proven false by the
existance of this newsgroup. I would be surprised if there were not a great
many holes in the Architecture which I don't know about.
20 years ago when I began programming the IBM 1130 it was possible to tear
the heads off the disk drive by seeking beyond the inner most cylinder. This
was guarded against by software. There is nothing conceptually difficult in
the concept that software can damage hardware.
While it may be very true that no virus in circulation today can blow up a
CRT monitor, I believe in theory one could be designed and written. There is
no technological barrier to prevent it. That one has not already been
written speaks to the psychology and technical expertise of the virus writer
not to the possibility of such a virus.
This newgroup should consider not only what is, but what can be.
Regards, DanB.
George Wenzel
In article <4m2o20$5...@excelsior.flash.net>, danb...@flash.net (Daniel L. Bates) wrote:
>>> I believe some monitors can be blown up by improperly programming
>>> the VGA control registers.
>>
>>Why do you believe this?
>>
>Cause I have read it from creditable source who have committed to it by
>publishing the same. Amoung these sources:
It just goes to show you that because something is printed, doesn't mean it is
true. Why do you consider the sources credible? Do you know exactly who they
are and what they know?
>"In theory you can experiment with these values. However, you should be
>careful with the timing registes (CRTC-Registers 0-7) since prolonged
>operation with extreme values (the monitor will whistle like crazy) can
>damage the monitor."
This perhaps could happen with some obscure, old monitor, but a current
monitor is safe from this problem. If this is such a large problem, then why,
out of 8000 or so viruses, does not a single one of them exploit this?
>"PC Underground Note - This feature can be used by those with malicious
>intent to damage someones monitor permanently. Therefore, we repeat: Use
>caution... if your monitor whistles loudly switch it off immediatly... fast
>action may save the monitor from permanent damage. It normally takes several
>seconds before the monitor is damaged. If you try such experiments, we
>recomment keeping one finger on the ON/OFF switch at all times just in
>case."
Why not keep one finger on the power switch just in case an excessively large
power surge comes down the line? That'd probably be more of a threat than
software damaging the monitor.
>
>The PC Architecture evolved with the assumption that the software running on
>it is friendly and not malicious.
Perhaps, but monitors are designed to take quite a beating (so to speak)
without any damage.
>An assumption proven false by the
>existance of this newsgroup. I would be surprised if there were not a great
>many holes in the Architecture which I don't know about.
If there are so many holes, why hasn't SOMEBODY exploited them by writing a
virus that causes hardware damage???
>
>20 years ago when I began programming the IBM 1130 it was possible to tear
>the heads off the disk drive by seeking beyond the inner most cylinder. This
>was guarded against by software. There is nothing conceptually difficult in
>the concept that software can damage hardware.
Perhaps that could have happened 20 years ago, but today hard drives
physically cannot be damaged this way.
>
>While it may be very true that no virus in circulation today can blow up a
>CRT monitor, I believe in theory one could be designed and written.
There are 8000 or so viruses out there, and quite a few aspiring virus authors
that know about hardware and look for holes to exploit. So far, nobody has
come up with one, and I do not believe that anybody will.
>There is
>no technological barrier to prevent it.
Why do you say this? Software can only tell hardware to do certain things,
and it does not have a magical hold over what hardware can do. Hardware has
limits, and software cannot cause hardware to exceed these limits. You cannot
tell software to make a hard drive spin infinitely fast until it blows up; it
isn't possible. Technology has numerous safeguards to prevent these sorts of
problems. Perhaps there are holes, but nobody has found one yet.
>That one has not already been
>written speaks to the psychology and technical expertise of the virus writer
>not to the possibility of such a virus.
But when there are several hundred virus writers, who would all (I presume)
love to cause damage to hardware, wouldn't you think they'd have looked for
various holes already?
>
>This newgroup should consider not only what is, but what can be.
Indeed, and I consider it unlikely that a hardware-damaging virus will ever
exist. We'll just have to wait and see who's right, I suppose. :-)
Moshe Litvin
On Sat, 27 Apr 96 12:09:43 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <4lo8r7$h...@mars.hyperk.com> std...@if.uidaho.edu
> "stdxxxx" writes:
>
>> Well, in John Mcafee's book "Computer Viruses, Trojan Horses,
>> Data Diddlers, and Other Threats to Your System", he claims that
>> a computer virus COULD do damage to computer hardware, much in
>> the same way that a car can be revved in fourth gear for some
>> time, and it will damage the engine.
>
>"Revved in fourth gear for some time"? Sounds like McAfee
>doesn't understand motorcars, either. Revving a car "in gear" is
>more normally referred to as "driving along the road".
>
>The simple way to establish that viruses can damage hardware is
>to name one virus that actually does it. No one seems able to do
>this.
It is the simplest way. Many people that knows about viruses much
more than I do, said that there is no such virus. I believe them. My
problems starts with claims that there won't be any such viruses in
the future.
[snip]
>> Moshe Litvin has contrary opinions.
>
>Does he know anything about driving a car?
1. Not much.
2. Until now hadn't made any statements here concerning cars.
3. I don't know English that much, but I believe that Mcafee idea was
that if you drive your car at 100kph (forward) and suddenly try to
shift the gear to reverse. My very limited understanding of cars
suggests that the gear won't like it.
>> Curiosity in any form is to be rewarded.
>
>I'm curious about your credit card numbers and bank balance.
>Let's have 'em.
He doesn't ask how to write such viruses, only if it possible. It is
more like asking if someone can mess with my bank balance. Why do you
suspect that the question has bad intentions?
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Iolo Davidson
In article <3184ff30...@news.huji.ac.il>
lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
His intentions weren't the issue. He contended that any form of
curiosity was deserving of reward; I demonstrated that this is
not the case.
Daniel L. Bates
In article <4m3doj$s...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
says...
>>Cause I have read it from creditable source who have committed to it by
>>publishing the same. Amoung these sources:
>
>It just goes to show you that because something is printed, doesn't mean it
is
>true. Why do you consider the sources credible? Do you know exactly who
they
>are and what they know?
They have published for some years. From the contents of the rest of the
book which includes much that I know much more about then VGA programming I
conclude the authors are credible.
Show me a quotation that says I can put any value I want in the registers
and I can't possibly hurt the monitor.
>This perhaps could happen with some obscure, old monitor, but a current
>monitor is safe from this problem. If this is such a large problem, then
why,
The book is 1995 for pete sakes. The problem is not the obscurity or age of
the monitor, but rather a specification which lies well with in the envelope
of what the VGA controller card will do. If you blow up a monitor the
manufacturer will simply say you exceeded specifications.
>out of 8000 or so viruses, does not a single one of them exploit this?
>
>Why not keep one finger on the power switch just in case an excessively
large
>power surge comes down the line? That'd probably be more of a threat than
>software damaging the monitor.
That's what I have a surge suppressor for cause my fingers aren't that fast.
with the refresh rate of a monitor my fingers are fast enough.
>Perhaps, but monitors are designed to take quite a beating (so to speak)
>without any damage.
>
Yes, as long as the parameters are within specification. you violate the
specification (for instance by running the monitor inside a 400 degree
farenheit oven) they will fail.
>>An assumption proven false by the
>>existance of this newsgroup. I would be surprised if there were not a
great
>>many holes in the Architecture which I don't know about.
>
>If there are so many holes, why hasn't SOMEBODY exploited them by writing a
>virus that causes hardware damage???
>>
>>was guarded against by software. There is nothing conceptually difficult
in
>>the concept that software can damage hardware.
>
>Perhaps that could have happened 20 years ago, but today hard drives
>physically cannot be damaged this way.
I did not claim they could. This was only to show the concept is valid.
>>
>>While it may be very true that no virus in circulation today can blow up a
>>CRT monitor, I believe in theory one could be designed and written.
>
>There are 8000 or so viruses out there, and quite a few aspiring virus
authors
>that know about hardware and look for holes to exploit. So far, nobody has
>come up with one, and I do not believe that anybody will.
>
The psychology of the virus writer is like that of a tower sniper.
He can do a great deal of damage with a rifle and bullets someone else
designed and built. The notion of a very special rifle or ammunition is
beyond his skills. He is defined by his alienation from society and his
desire to be big by destroying. The man who can design and build his own
rifle and ammunition does not suffer the self esteem problems of the sniper.
Someone capable of writing the virus which can damage the monitor has no
psychological desire to do so.
>>There is
>>no technological barrier to prevent it.
>
>Why do you say this? Software can only tell hardware to do certain things,
>and it does not have a magical hold over what hardware can do. Hardware
has
>limits, and software cannot cause hardware to exceed these limits. You
cannot
>tell software to make a hard drive spin infinitely fast until it blows up;
it
>isn't possible. Technology has numerous safeguards to prevent these sorts
of
>problems. Perhaps there are holes, but nobody has found one yet.
>
>
>Indeed, and I consider it unlikely that a hardware-damaging virus will ever
>exist. We'll just have to wait and see who's right, I suppose. :-)
>
your faith in the infallibility of the PC Architecture (admittably the work
of fallible human beings) borders on being religous in nature. You sound
like Goring in WWII telling Adolf that the communications of the Reich are
secure because enigma will never be broken.
Regards,
DanB.
George Wenzel
In article <4m3sv0$d...@excelsior.flash.net>, danb...@flash.net (Daniel L. Bates) wrote:
>>>Cause I have read it from creditable source who have committed to it by
>>>publishing the same. Amoung these sources:
>>
>>It just goes to show you that because something is printed, doesn't mean it
>is
>>true. Why do you consider the sources credible? Do you know exactly who
>they
>>are and what they know?
>
>They have published for some years. From the contents of the rest of the
>book which includes much that I know much more about then VGA programming I
>conclude the authors are credible.
The New York Times has published for many years, but many of the things they
print aren't quite truthful. They're truthful enough to avoid lawsuits, but
they stretch the truth just enough to be sensationalist. That's the way most
media functions. Your argument doesn't really jive, because you're saying
that since they know more than you, and because some of the things they write
are accurate, then everything they write is accurate.
>
>Show me a quotation that says I can put any value I want in the registers
>and I can't possibly hurt the monitor.
>
Hold on here... you made the claim that software could damage a monitor, and
therefore the burden of proof is upon you. I cannot prove that it is
impossible to damage a monitor, but I can infer it. You can, however, prove
that it is possible by providing a piece of code (private e-mail and
PGP-encrypted, of course) that can damage a current monitor.
>
>>This perhaps could happen with some obscure, old monitor, but a current
>>monitor is safe from this problem. If this is such a large problem, then
>why,
>
>The book is 1995 for pete sakes. The problem is not the obscurity or age of
>the monitor, but rather a specification which lies well with in the envelope
>of what the VGA controller card will do. If you blow up a monitor the
>manufacturer will simply say you exceeded specifications.
Tell me how this is possible. I want some sort of proof. Just because the
book was printed in 1995 doesn't mean it's accurate, nor that the information
printed in it is current.
>
>>out of 8000 or so viruses, does not a single one of them exploit this?
>>
>>Why not keep one finger on the power switch just in case an excessively
>large
>>power surge comes down the line? That'd probably be more of a threat than
>>software damaging the monitor.
>
>That's what I have a surge suppressor for cause my fingers aren't that fast.
>with the refresh rate of a monitor my fingers are fast enough.
My monitor whistles occasionally, and I've never turned it off. I have the
refresh rates turned up as high as they will go, as well as the resolution.
I've had my monitor functioning this way for the past year. According to your
claims, my monitor should have blown up by now, but it hasn't.
If you claim that software can cause damage to a monitor, then provide some
sort of concrete proof for your claim. We've heard this argument from many
people before, and nobody has been able to provide a piece of software that
damages hardware. There are people who have publically offered large sums of
money to someone who could create or find a piece of software that could
damage current hardware. So far, nobody that I know of has taken them up on
their claims.
>
>>Perhaps, but monitors are designed to take quite a beating (so to speak)
>>without any damage.
>>
>Yes, as long as the parameters are within specification. you violate the
>specification (for instance by running the monitor inside a 400 degree
>farenheit oven) they will fail.
Unfortunately, software cannot increase the temperature of the monitor to 400
degrees. :-)
>
>>>An assumption proven false by the
>>>existance of this newsgroup. I would be surprised if there were not a
>great
>>>many holes in the Architecture which I don't know about.
>>
>>If there are so many holes, why hasn't SOMEBODY exploited them by writing a
>>virus that causes hardware damage???
>>>was guarded against by software. There is nothing conceptually difficult
>in
>>>the concept that software can damage hardware.
>>
>>Perhaps that could have happened 20 years ago, but today hard drives
>>physically cannot be damaged this way.
>
>I did not claim they could. This was only to show the concept is valid.
What concept? Yes, software COULD have damaged hardware that was old before
standards came about. My belief is that CURRENT hardware cannot be damaged by
software, and so far, nobody has put forth a convincing argument otherwise.
>>>
>>>While it may be very true that no virus in circulation today can blow up a
>>>CRT monitor, I believe in theory one could be designed and written.
>>
>>There are 8000 or so viruses out there, and quite a few aspiring virus
>authors
>>that know about hardware and look for holes to exploit. So far, nobody has
>>come up with one, and I do not believe that anybody will.
>>
<rifle analogy snipped>
>Someone capable of writing the virus which can damage the monitor has no
>psychological desire to do so.
Many of the people who write viruses are indeed talented programmers who could
probably have found a better way to use their skills. By definition, they are
being malicious, and as such they would likely wish to find a way to damage
hardware. Aside from that, they could make some money by writing a virus that
causes hardware damage (see above). So far, nobody has.
>
>your faith in the infallibility of the PC Architecture (admittably the work
>of fallible human beings) borders on being religous in nature. You sound
>like Goring in WWII telling Adolf that the communications of the Reich are
>secure because enigma will never be broken.
I'm just requesting that somebody try to convince me otherwise, and nobody has
found a convincing argument yet. The VGA registers argument has been used
before (many times), and it's never been proven. Until somebody finds a way
to damage hardware using software (I consider it unlikely), I'll merrily hold
my belief.
Iolo Davidson
In article <4m3sv0$d...@excelsior.flash.net>
danb...@flash.net "Daniel L. Bates" writes:
> Show me a quotation that says I can put any value I want in
> the registers and I can't possibly hurt the monitor.
Logical fallacy. You have to support your own contentions.
Otherwise you get, "Aliens are running the government. Prove I'm
wrong."
If you claim such damage is possible, then it ought to be simple
for you to demonstrate it.
> your faith in the infallibility of the PC Architecture (admittably the work
> of fallible human beings) borders on being religous in nature. You sound
> like Goring in WWII telling Adolf that the communications of the Reich are
> secure because enigma will never be broken.
Enigma was broken. The people that broke it demonstrated the
fact. You claim that viruses can damage hardware, then let's
have a demonstration. Name the virus.
Iolo Davidson
In article <4m2o20$5...@excelsior.flash.net>
danb...@flash.net "Daniel L. Bates" writes:
> In article <830697...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> >In article <4ltvd4$q...@excelsior.flash.net>
> > danb...@flash.net "Daniel L. Bates" writes:
> >
> >> I believe some monitors can be blown up by improperly programming
> >> the VGA control registers.
> >
> >Why do you believe this?
> >
> Cause I have read it from creditable source who have committed to it by
> publishing the same. Amoung these sources:
Ought to be easy to demonstrate then, if you have documented
details of how it is supposed to happen.
> PC Underground - Unconventional Programming Topics
> Bertelson Rasch & Hoffmann
> printed Abacus Press Copyright 1995
This is your "creditable" source? Sounds like an exploitation
book to me. There are a lot of people repeating scary rumours
and legends, even in here, where they don't make any money off
it.
> There is nothing conceptually difficult in
> the concept that software can damage hardware.
Nothing difficult in the *concept* certainly. Lets see you do
it. Not with an obsolete mainframe, but today's equipment.
> While it may be very true that no virus in circulation today can
> blow up a CRT monitor, I believe in theory one could be designed
> and written.
So why do you think there are no such viruses?
> There is no technological barrier to prevent it.
Sure there is, properly designed hardware will ignore out of spec
instructions or signals.
> That one has not already been written speaks to the psychology
> and technical expertise of the virus writer not to the possibility
> of such a virus.
Many virus writers are untalented, but a few are capable of doing
anything that is actually possible. If it hasn't been done, that
is good evidence that no one has been able to do it.
> This newgroup should consider not only what is, but what can be.
No, this newsgroup should not spread scare stories, rumours, and
urban legends. It should tromp on misinformation whenever it
appears. The subject asks "CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?".
The answer is "NO".
a000
George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: If you claim that software can cause damage to a monitor, then provide some
: sort of concrete proof for your claim. We've heard this argument from many
Software wrapped in concrete? :)
: people before, and nobody has been able to provide a piece of software that
: damages hardware. There are people who have publically offered large sums of
I would say no one has chosen to do so. Not that no one could.
: money to someone who could create or find a piece of software that could
: damage current hardware. So far, nobody that I know of has taken them up on
: their claims.
Who is making such an offer, and how much are they offering? Do you
have e-mail contact information for them? I agree there is not any
virus that can cause hardware damage to current hardware. But you
said here 'software' not 'virus'.
: Many of the people who write viruses are indeed talented programmers who could
: probably have found a better way to use their skills. By definition, they are
: being malicious, and as such they would likely wish to find a way to damage
: hardware. Aside from that, they could make some money by writing a virus that
This is not the case. By your definition they are being malicious.
Not by all definitions. Merely being a virus writer does not make
someone 'malicious'. In fact, many virus writers are not 'malicious'
but I would agree some are :)
I would say more are now than were in the past. But I would not
say they are such by definition, as any sort of homogenous group.
Does using a skill in a way that is less than the 'best' way to use it
constitute malice? I don't think it does.
Judgemental errors are also not malicious.
: before (many times), and it's never been proven. Until somebody finds a way
: to damage hardware using software (I consider it unlikely), I'll merrily hold
: my belief.
:
I think it would be irresponsible to put on this or any other
newsgroup specific detailed information on how to damage hardware
of any type using any type of software. It is not the case that
any virus does it, so to do so would be in particularly poor taste
and judgement.
Sarah
--
i work for Command Software Systems. we are the F-PROT Professional people.
these are my own thoughts. they are not representative of my Employer, my
University, my Government or my Husband. Maybe they should be. But they aren't!
if they are, i'll mention it clearly. else assume i speak for myself!!!!!!!!!!
myac...@glas.apc.org
Hello!
Although I can't name any virus that can cause the hardware damage,
I think that some hw can be destroyed by improper programming. I've also
heard about the experiments with HDD but I don't believe that this is
possible.
What is possible that is to crash the video system.
>control registers.
>careful with the timing registes (CRTC-Registers 0-7) since prolonged
>operation with extreme values (the monitor will whistle like crazy) can
>damage the monitor."
that CRTC could be damaged by improper manipulation with MISCELLANEOUS
OUTPUT register. The known fact is that we can get the high resolution by
incrementing the clock value in the FEATURE CONTROL register and if the
adapter doesn't support such a frequency the chip will be destroyed!
Regards.
Scecottini.
Moshe Litvin
>Improper programming, that's a different matter. If you can prove it, please
>do so, but this thread has been around for years, and we've seen every which
>way it's been argued. So far, nobody has been able to find out a way for
>software to damage current hardware. This is assuming the person is using
>properly manufactured, non-defective hardware.
Why are you ignoring the flash rom problem? Do you ignore that simply
because it contradicts your believes? Have yo considered that may be
there are ways that software can damage hardwarre that no one has yet
thought about?
A few month ago I sugested the idea of damaging hardware (and other
objects) using a sound card and a speaker. I believe that you refered
to the idea of sound causing hardware damage as an urban myth, which
shows that you know even less physics than I do. Sound energy (even in
the hearing range) can (under certain circumstances) break things.
That is a FACT. I do not think that common sound cards and speakers
are good enough for it but the idea has two intersting points:
1. The better the hardware the more likely it is to cause damage.
2. You hadn't thought about it, other hadn't. Is there any other thing
that you haven't thought about? can you be sure?
Please think about that before you flame back.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Moshe Litvin
On Sun, 28 Apr 96 12:50:42 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[snip]
>There is no virus that does this. Yes, flash bioses can be
>reprogrammed. A virus could do the reprogramming just like the
>reprogramming program could, if the virus writer knew how (and
>the details of this are different for different makes of
>motherboard) and if the write protect switch is set to write
>enable. Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
>"damage to hardware"? But anyway, there is no virus that does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this.
Why do you use question mark? At least one motherboard (*) has no
write protect. No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
Regards
Moshe Litvin
(*) I am referring to Endeavour EV-2 motherboards see:
http://www.mrbios.com/ftp/big_risk.txt
George Wenzel
In article <4m7t1c$r...@seminole.gate.net>, a0...@gate.net (a000) wrote:
>George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>
>: If you claim that software can cause damage to a monitor, then provide some
>
Ahh, but then it'd be hardware. Software is intangible, something that is
placed upon hardware (disks). The disks themselves are hardware. The
concrete would merely be candy coating. :-)
>
>: people before, and nobody has been able to provide a piece of software that
>: damages hardware. There are people who have publically offered large sums of
>
>I would say no one has chosen to do so. Not that no one could.
Perhaps, but the fact that nobody has chosen to do so is good evidence that
it's not possible. It's not irrefutable evidence, but it is evidence.
>
>: money to someone who could create or find a piece of software that could
>: damage current hardware. So far, nobody that I know of has taken them up on
>: their claims.
>
>Who is making such an offer, and how much are they offering? Do you
>have e-mail contact information for them? I agree there is not any
>virus that can cause hardware damage to current hardware. But you
>said here 'software' not 'virus'.
Ask around in this group... I'm not aware of exactly who is making the offers,
but I do know that there is more than one person who's put up a $1000 'reward'
for a piece of code that is able to permanently damage their equipment.
>
>: Many of the people who write viruses are indeed talented programmers who
> could
>: probably have found a better way to use their skills. By definition, they
> are
>: being malicious, and as such they would likely wish to find a way to damage
>: hardware. Aside from that, they could make some money by writing a virus
> that
>
>This is not the case. By your definition they are being malicious.
>Not by all definitions. Merely being a virus writer does not make
>someone 'malicious'. In fact, many virus writers are not 'malicious'
>but I would agree some are :)
A virus is a malicious program, by my definition, so also by my definition,
the creation of a virus is a malicious act. Perhaps not everybody agrees, but
I'd like to think that most people agree with me.
>
>I would say more are now than were in the past. But I would not
>say they are such by definition, as any sort of homogenous group.
By my definition, virus writers are by definition definitively malicious
people. Definitely. Definitively. Of course, that's just my definition.
I've used that word WAY too much in one paragraph.... ;-)
>
>Does using a skill in a way that is less than the 'best' way to use it
>constitute malice? I don't think it does.
Perhaps, but since writing and distributing (I'm assuming they will spread the
virus after writing it) is an act that will cause people grief, and therefore
is a malicious act. People who create viruses are therefore being malicious.
>
>Judgemental errors are also not malicious.
But ignorance is not a defence...
>
>: before (many times), and it's never been proven. Until somebody finds a way
>: to damage hardware using software (I consider it unlikely), I'll merrily hold
>: my belief.
>:
>I think it would be irresponsible to put on this or any other
>newsgroup specific detailed information on how to damage hardware
>of any type using any type of software. It is not the case that
>any virus does it, so to do so would be in particularly poor taste
>and judgement.
Indeed. I would not expect somebody to post publically such a thing, but
rather via e-mail using PGP. I'd gladly change my opinion if somebody could
prove me wrong, but nobody has. I should also add into the above paragraph
(the one I wrote) that the hardware is current and the OS is something
mainstream (DOS/Windoze/OS-2/Mac), etc.
George Wenzel
In article <APC&63'0'319ef123'6...@glas.apc.org>, myac...@glas.apc.org wrote:
> Although I can't name any virus that can cause the hardware damage,
That's because none exist.
>I think that some hw can be destroyed by improper programming. I've also
>heard about the experiments with HDD but I don't believe that this is
>possible.
AFAIK, it isn't possible. Somebody might prove otherwise, but nobody has yet.
> What is possible that is to crash the video system.
>>I believe some monitors can be blown up by improperly programming the VGA
>>control registers.
> Sure! But not the monitors. The CRTC chips can be damaged.
CRTC=Canadian Radio and Television Commission? :-)
>>"In theory you can experiment with these values. However, you should be
>>careful with the timing registes (CRTC-Registers 0-7) since prolonged
>>operation with extreme values (the monitor will whistle like crazy) can
>>damage the monitor."
> The "Programmer's Guide to IBM PC and IBM PS/2 Video System" reads
>that CRTC could be damaged by improper manipulation with MISCELLANEOUS
>OUTPUT register.
Yes, and this is there so that the monitor manufacturer has their ass covered
in case they made a blatant problem that causes monitors to get damaged. That
doesn't mean that the problem exists.
>The known fact is that we can get the high resolution by
>incrementing the clock value in the FEATURE CONTROL register and if the
>adapter doesn't support such a frequency the chip will be destroyed!
Sorry, but no. We've heard about this many times, and if you know how it's
done, then send me a file that does this. If it is so easy, you will have no
problem e-mailing me a file that causes this sort of damage.
Paul Kerrigan
On Wed, 01 May 1996 22:45:54 GMT, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe
Litvin) may have said something like:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 96 12:50:42 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
>>"damage to hardware"?
[snip]
>Why do you use question mark? At least one motherboard (*) has no
>write protect. No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
>the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
>computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
>for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
>this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
While I would not presume to speak for Mr. Davidson, it seems obvious
enough why he uses a "?" - because he's asking a question.
Anyway, I think that you are missing the point. While erasing the
"Flash" BIOS, or storing garbage in it, could certainly render the
computer at least temporarily useless - until the "Flash" (eeprom) was
reprogrammed or replaced (which may not be cost-efficient), it does
not "damage" the hardware. Storing garbage / erasing it simply misuses
it. It's no more damaged than a hard disk which is filled with garbage
or erased etc.
>And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
>should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
>malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
>a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
Bluntly, no. It's simply using it to the end of it's life cycle. It
may be mailicious, it may be illegal and unethical, but it's not
damaging the hardware. As you said "Flash" ROM has a limited
erase/write life cycle. However, so do most things; it's just that
that of eeproms is short, relative to the rest of the components in a
PC. It's a design / technology issue, not a matter for damage. A power
surge could "damage" an eeprom, but programming/reporgramming it will
merely wear it out (eventually - let's not start a panic here !).
To risk an analogy: If I write , using a pencil, on a piece of stone,
I can erase and re-use it many, many times. It will probably outlast
me and the impact of my write/erase cycles will be minimal. However,
if I use a piece of thin paper, the number of cycles before the paper
wears out is quite limited. Am I destroying the paper ? No, I'm using
it, in accordance with its designed purpose - until it wears out. Took
stretch it even further, if I scribble on a piece of writing paper and
then erase (repeat etc.), I am not destroying the paper, merely
misusing it.
The BIOS to which you referred is, imnsho, one a poorly designed
motherboard - a well designed one would have protected the eeprom, and
might even have had a genuine ROM for at least a potion of the BIOS.
Or easily replaceable eeproms....or....or....or
With best wishes,
pk
PS: The above is not intended in any way as a flame - just a
clarification.
[Also sent as e-mail.]
--
Paul Kerrigan | He said:"Smile & be happy, for things could be worse"..
pker...@iol.ie | So I smiled and was happy...and things _were_ worse !
PGP Key at |ftp.iol.ie/users/pkerrign/pgp-key
PGP Public Fingerprint:86 38 B4 DB 7D EB 08 EF F2 FC 51 9D 8A 68 FB 6A
George Wenzel
In article <3187dcaf...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 96 03:28:02 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George
>Wenzel) wrote:
>
>>Improper programming, that's a different matter. If you can prove it, please
>>do so, but this thread has been around for years, and we've seen every which
>>way it's been argued. So far, nobody has been able to find out a way for
>>software to damage current hardware. This is assuming the person is using
>>properly manufactured, non-defective hardware.
>
>Why are you ignoring the flash rom problem? Do you ignore that simply
>because it contradicts your believes? Have yo considered that may be
>there are ways that software can damage hardwarre that no one has yet
>thought about?
I've considered the flash ROM problem, and I don't know enough about flash ROM
to make any educated comments, so I avoid them. Isn't there a hardware-based
method of resetting a flash ROM?
And aside from that, the data within ROM is software, not hardware. It's
possible for software to rewrite the flash ROM, but that isn't damaging the
hardware itself - just rewriting the code held within the ROM.
>
>A few month ago I sugested the idea of damaging hardware (and other
>objects) using a sound card and a speaker. I believe that you refered
>to the idea of sound causing hardware damage as an urban myth, which
>shows that you know even less physics than I do. Sound energy (even in
>the hearing range) can (under certain circumstances) break things.
I'm not sure if it was I who said that sound causing damage being an urban
myth, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. I admit that I know very little
about physics (I never took it in high school, in favor of the social
sciences).
>That is a FACT. I do not think that common sound cards and speakers
>are good enough for it but the idea has two intersting points:
Can you provide some evidence from sound technicians to back up your claim?
I suppose it might be possible, but I do doubt it. The speakers would have to
be 10 feet high to put out that much power to cause hardware damage. And even
so, that's not software causing damage to hardware, at least not directly -
it's hardware (the speakers) causing damage to other hardware.
>
>1. The better the hardware the more likely it is to cause damage.
It it's a large speaker, then I suppose the likelyhood of it causing damage
would be higher.
>
>2. You hadn't thought about it, other hadn't. Is there any other thing
>that you haven't thought about? can you be sure?
There are many things I haven't thought about, and I'm sure of that. There
will always be many things I haven't thought about, and I admit that. I'm
simply saying that I believe that the restrictions upon what software can do
to hardware are strict enough to prevent software damage of current hardware.
So far, nobody has disproven my theory, so I consider it reasonably supported.
I can't prove that software and viruses will never damage hardware, but it is
possible to disprove my theory by showing some software that can damage
current equipment.
>
>Please think about that before you flame back.
I don't flame people, and I never have. There is a big difference between
flaming somebody and disagreeing with them. I'm not saying you're wrong,
because I don't know. I am, however, asking for evidence. If you say that
sound can cause hardware damage, and it is a fact, then it should be
relatively easy to find a sound technician that agrees with you and is willing
to give more details.
George Wenzel
In article <3187dcff...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>There is no virus that does this. Yes, flash bioses can be
>>reprogrammed. A virus could do the reprogramming just like the
>>reprogramming program could, if the virus writer knew how (and
>>the details of this are different for different makes of
>>motherboard) and if the write protect switch is set to write
>>enable. Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
>>"damage to hardware"? But anyway, there is no virus that does
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>this.
>
>write protect. No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
>the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
Last time I checked, data was software, not hardware. Software that does this
wouldn't really be damaging the hardware, just rewriting some software.
>computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
>for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
>this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
It's a debatable point. I would consider the fact that the BIOS ROM could not
be manually reset a design flaw, and by your words it isn't something that's
used in a lot of motherboards.
>
>And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
>should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
>malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
>a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
No, it would not destroy the chip. It would simply tell the chip to do what
it is designed to do, until it reached its designed lifetime. Software can
also cause HD heads to randomly seek for months on end until the drive fails,
but that isn't really hardware damage, since the hardware is meant to do that
anyhow.
a000
George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: placed upon hardware (disks). The disks themselves are hardware. The
: concrete would merely be candy coating. :-)
:). yum.
: Perhaps, but the fact that nobody has chosen to do so is good evidence that
: it's not possible. It's not irrefutable evidence, but it is evidence.
You don't know that no one has chosen to do so. I don't know it too.
What we do know is that no one has chosen to post about it, or talk
about it....
Evidence? There are various kinds, as you know. The kind of ommission is
rarely admissible :)
: Ask around in this group... I'm not aware of exactly who is making the offers,
: but I do know that there is more than one person who's put up a $1000 'reward'
: for a piece of code that is able to permanently damage their equipment.
:
I'd like to know who this is. And, how much :)
: >This is not the case. By your definition they are being malicious.
: >Not by all definitions. Merely being a virus writer does not make
: >someone 'malicious'. In fact, many virus writers are not 'malicious'
: >but I would agree some are :)
:
: A virus is a malicious program, by my definition, so also by my definition,
: the creation of a virus is a malicious act. Perhaps not everybody agrees, but
: I'd like to think that most people agree with me.
I think it is an irresponsible act, in almost all cases. I think it
is an unethical act, in the academic sense of 'ethics', and that it is
such for various reasons. However, it is not necessarily a malicious
act. A program cannot be malicious, as malice involves an act of will.
A program does not have 'will' in the 'human' sense.
There is the aspect of the virus as autonomous agent, which some
(barely) are :). This is much more involved topic.
I know one of the 'definitions' of certain types of software is
'malicious', but it can be argued that this is incorrect definition.
: >I would say more are now than were in the past. But I would not
: >say they are such by definition, as any sort of homogenous group.
:
: By my definition, virus writers are by definition definitively malicious
: people. Definitely. Definitively. Of course, that's just my definition.
: I've used that word WAY too much in one paragraph.... ;-)
I would suggest here that if you have not read "The Generic Virus Writer",
available at http://www.commandcom.com or in the proceedings of the
Virus Bulletin 94 Conference, you take a look at it. I will be doing
an updated version for this years VB Conference.
Then, I would like to debate the point with you. I found that it is
not the case that all virus writers are malicious. I found actually
that many of them do not realise the impact of their actions, and are
not intentionally doing things they know will 'hurt' anyone. They
often do not realise the larger impact, the bigger picture. Many fall
into 'norms' as far as ethical development, and in fact it is virus
distributors who are above a certain age which have < norm development.
This is not using my own 'scale' of what is norm, but based on studies
done, of longitudinal nature, by people with no interest in viruses
whatsoever.
This should not be seen in any way saying it is 'ok' or 'cool' or
'good'. It is not, and we work hard to educate people so they will
realise that their computer based interactions have *real* impact.
But, in order to do this, it is necessary that we do not misinterpret
motives, reasoning, etc. Many people working in ethics and education
recognise there is no malice involved in many computer-based deviant
behaviours. In some cases, there is.
: >Does using a skill in a way that is less than the 'best' way to use it
: >constitute malice? I don't think it does.
:
: Perhaps, but since writing and distributing (I'm assuming they will spread the
: virus after writing it) is an act that will cause people grief, and therefore
You are making incorrect assumption here.
: is a malicious act. People who create viruses are therefore being malicious.
: >
Well, your logic flows, but the premises are invalid.
: >Judgemental errors are also not malicious.
:
: But ignorance is not a defence...
I agree. It is not. But ignorance does negate malice by definition.
: >I think it would be irresponsible to put on this or any other
: >newsgroup specific detailed information on how to damage hardware
: >of any type using any type of software. It is not the case that
: >any virus does it, so to do so would be in particularly poor taste
: >and judgement.
:
: Indeed. I would not expect somebody to post publically such a thing, but
: rather via e-mail using PGP. I'd gladly change my opinion if somebody could
Well, the question is to whom should they post it. What would be
done with the knowledge. Is it appropriate to share such info? Since it
is actually publicly available, I think 'is it ok' is more subjective
than I'd initially think.
: prove me wrong, but nobody has. I should also add into the above paragraph
: (the one I wrote) that the hardware is current and the OS is something
: mainstream (DOS/Windoze/OS-2/Mac), etc.
Assume you include UNIX/Linux? If so, please let me know how much
you will pay for the info, and I will send you the bank account to
which you can post it :), after of course, you test out the method.
Assume you have a monitor you do not need :)
Gene Wirchenko
gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:
>In article <4m7t1c$r...@seminole.gate.net>, a0...@gate.net (a000) wrote:
>>George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: If you claim that software can cause damage to a monitor, then provide some
>>: sort of concrete proof for your claim. We've heard this argument from many
>>
>>Software wrapped in concrete? :)
>Ahh, but then it'd be hardware. Software is intangible, something that is
>placed upon hardware (disks). The disks themselves are hardware. The
>concrete would merely be candy coating. :-)
Or firmware. Really firmware.
[snip]
>Ask around in this group... I'm not aware of exactly who is making the offers,
>but I do know that there is more than one person who's put up a $1000 'reward'
>for a piece of code that is able to permanently damage their equipment.
Speaking of money, Doren never did take me up on my offer of a
bet about the evil CARO virus writer. <sniff, sniff>
[snip]
>A virus is a malicious program, by my definition, so also by my definition,
>the creation of a virus is a malicious act. Perhaps not everybody agrees, but
>I'd like to think that most people agree with me.
I don't like viruses, George, but I don't agree with you. If I
wanted to learn about viruses in depth, I'd probably try writing some
UNDER TIGHT SECURITY. It would never be my intent for them to get
loose, so where would the malice be? Incompetence perhaps if any ever
got loose, but not malice.
The situation would be comparable to a security officer trying to
figure out how to break into his building and using the knowledge to
close security holes.
[snip]
>By my definition, virus writers are by definition definitively malicious
>people. Definitely. Definitively. Of course, that's just my definition.
>I've used that word WAY too much in one paragraph.... ;-)
See above.
[snip]
>Perhaps, but since writing and distributing (I'm assuming they will spread the
>virus after writing it) is an act that will cause people grief, and therefore
>is a malicious act. People who create viruses are therefore being malicious.
Your assumption is invalid.
>>
>>Judgemental errors are also not malicious.
>But ignorance is not a defence...
Who's calling it a defense? The point is the judgemental errors
and malice are different.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
C Pronunciation Guide:
y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
George Wenzel
In article <4mcvsn$j...@seminole.gate.net>, a0...@gate.net (a000) wrote:
>George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>
>
>: placed upon hardware (disks). The disks themselves are hardware. The
>: concrete would merely be candy coating. :-)
>
>:). yum.
mmm.... concrete...
>
>: Perhaps, but the fact that nobody has chosen to do so is good evidence that
>: it's not possible. It's not irrefutable evidence, but it is evidence.
>
>You don't know that no one has chosen to do so. I don't know it too.
>What we do know is that no one has chosen to post about it, or talk
>about it....
True, but I would think that SOMEBODY out there would have both the expertise
to figure out how it would be done, and the malice to make that information
public. So far, nobody (to my knowledge, of course), has publicized this
information. One would think that if this information were publicized
somewhere, it'd eventually come to alt.comp.virus.
>
>Evidence? There are various kinds, as you know. The kind of ommission is
>rarely admissible :)
:-)
>
>: Ask around in this group... I'm not aware of exactly who is making the
> offers,
>: but I do know that there is more than one person who's put up a $1000
> 'reward'
>: for a piece of code that is able to permanently damage their equipment.
>:
>
>I'd like to know who this is. And, how much :)
I would, but I have no money. (damn tuition...)
>: A virus is a malicious program, by my definition, so also by my definition,
>: the creation of a virus is a malicious act. Perhaps not everybody agrees,
> but
>: I'd like to think that most people agree with me.
>
>I think it is an irresponsible act, in almost all cases. I think it
>is an unethical act, in the academic sense of 'ethics', and that it is
>such for various reasons. However, it is not necessarily a malicious
>act. A program cannot be malicious, as malice involves an act of will.
>A program does not have 'will' in the 'human' sense.
Indeed, the program itself cannot be malicious, but it can be a medium along
which a malicious act is done. The act of writing and distributing a virus,
providing the person knows what they are doing (it's a fair presumption that
people know what viruses do), is a malicious act.
>
>There is the aspect of the virus as autonomous agent, which some
>(barely) are :). This is much more involved topic.
Indeed... a LOT more involved.
>
>I know one of the 'definitions' of certain types of software is
>'malicious', but it can be argued that this is incorrect definition.
Indeed it can be argued, but I would argue that intentionally creating
such software is a malicious act. The software itself cannot hold malice, but
the person(s) that created it can.
>
>: >I would say more are now than were in the past. But I would not
>: >say they are such by definition, as any sort of homogenous group.
>:
>: By my definition, virus writers are by definition definitively malicious
>: people. Definitely. Definitively. Of course, that's just my definition.
>: I've used that word WAY too much in one paragraph.... ;-)
>
>I would suggest here that if you have not read "The Generic Virus Writer",
>available at http://www.commandcom.com or in the proceedings of the
>Virus Bulletin 94 Conference, you take a look at it. I will be doing
>an updated version for this years VB Conference.
I just did read it, and it was quite good. Damned hard to read, being
entirely center-justified, but I suppose it's not a perfect world. :-) Oddly
enough, I seem to be an exact double of your second case study. :-)
It would seem that your argument that no malice is involved is based upon the
fact that the virus writers in your study do not believe they have broken the
law, and they do not believe that their viruses are harmful (I am generalizing
here). As my chosen field is sociology/criminology, I found the paper quite
informative.
>
>Then, I would like to debate the point with you. I found that it is
>not the case that all virus writers are malicious. I found actually
>that many of them do not realise the impact of their actions, and are
>not intentionally doing things they know will 'hurt' anyone. They
>often do not realise the larger impact, the bigger picture. Many fall
>into 'norms' as far as ethical development, and in fact it is virus
>distributors who are above a certain age which have < norm development.
>This is not using my own 'scale' of what is norm, but based on studies
>done, of longitudinal nature, by people with no interest in viruses
>whatsoever.
Just for reference, I figured the following would be helpful:
Webster Definition for "malice"
mal.ice \'mal-*s\ n [ME, fr. OF, fr. L malitia, fr. malus bad - more at SMALL]
: ILL WILL; specif : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without
legal
justification or excuseSPLEEN, GRUDGE: MALICE may imply a deep-seated and
often unreasonable dislike and a desire to see one suffer or it may suggest a
causeless passing mischievous impulse; MALEVOLENCE implies a deep and lasting
hatred; ILL WILL may suggest a briefer feeling of anitpathy and resentment
often with cause; SPITE implies active malevolemce together with envy or
meanness of spirit; MALIGNITY stresses the intensity and driving force of
malevolence; SPLEEN implies ill will together with hot temper; GRUDGE implies
a cherished feeling of resentment or ill will that seeks satisfaction SYN syn
MALEVOLENCE, ILL WILL, SPITE, MALIGNITY,
>
>This should not be seen in any way saying it is 'ok' or 'cool' or
>'good'. It is not, and we work hard to educate people so they will
>realise that their computer based interactions have *real* impact.
>But, in order to do this, it is necessary that we do not misinterpret
>motives, reasoning, etc. Many people working in ethics and education
>recognise there is no malice involved in many computer-based deviant
>behaviours. In some cases, there is.
I can see by your case studies how many (assuming your sample is valid) virus
writers would not be malicious. The problem is, they are committing an act
which causes people grief, and may cause even more serious problems. The
question at hand is whether an act is malicious if it does harm people, but
the people doing it do not believe that their acts are harmful. Perhaps
malice is the wrong word, since malice defines the drives behind the action,
not the action itself.
>
>: >Does using a skill in a way that is less than the 'best' way to use it
>: >constitute malice? I don't think it does.
>:
>: Perhaps, but since writing and distributing (I'm assuming they will spread
> the
>: virus after writing it) is an act that will cause people grief, and therefore
>
>
>You are making incorrect assumption here.
I'm assuming that we're studying the group of virus writers that have
distributed their wares. It'd be rather difficult to study a virus writer
that never released their virus.
>
>: is a malicious act. People who create viruses are therefore being malicious.
>: >
>
>Well, your logic flows, but the premises are invalid.
My logic tends to do that sort of thing. :-)
I know that debating whether the writing of a virus itself would be malicious,
since it's difficult to know the reactions of each virus writer, and malice
may be involved depending on who we're talking about. There are, without a
doubt, malicious virus writers, and I do agree with your study that they are a
minority, but I question whether the label of 'malicious' should be applied to
a virus writer because their act harms people.
>: >Judgemental errors are also not malicious.
>:
>: But ignorance is not a defence...
>
>I agree. It is not. But ignorance does negate malice by definition.
True.
>: Indeed. I would not expect somebody to post publically such a thing, but
>: rather via e-mail using PGP. I'd gladly change my opinion if somebody could
>
>Well, the question is to whom should they post it. What would be
>done with the knowledge. Is it appropriate to share such info? Since it
>is actually publicly available, I think 'is it ok' is more subjective
>than I'd initially think.
I would think that it would be appropriate to share such information with
people who one knows won't use it for malicious ends. AV companies, for
example. :-)
>
>: prove me wrong, but nobody has. I should also add into the above paragraph
>: (the one I wrote) that the hardware is current and the OS is something
>: mainstream (DOS/Windoze/OS-2/Mac), etc.
>
>Assume you include UNIX/Linux? If so, please let me know how much
>you will pay for the info, and I will send you the bank account to
>which you can post it :), after of course, you test out the method.
>Assume you have a monitor you do not need :)
I've heard about problems with Linux and monitors, and I won't comment on them
since I don't know enough about Linux to make a valuable comment. I will
propose, however, that the problem is a defect in the operating system, not
in the monitor.
As well, will this 'bug' affect all monitors, or just certain types/brands?
Regards,
George Wenzel
(who thinks this thread is getting WAY too deep)
Iolo Davidson
In article <3187dcaf...@news.huji.ac.il>
lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 96 03:28:02 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
> (George Wenzel) wrote:
>
> Why are you ignoring the flash rom problem? Do you ignore that
> simply because it contradicts your believes?
I'm not ignoring it, in fact I had an article about it published
in the Guardian (a UK national newspaper) a couple of years ago,
in which I raised the problem of viruses or other malicious
programs corrupting flash BIOSes, and warned that motherboard
that used them needed to have hardware write protect switches.
But it still isn't hardware damage. It is just reprogramming.
Flash eproms are designed to be reprogrammed. If they are
reprogrammed improperly, they can be reprogrammed again,
properly. It would be a bind, but then so is having your disk
wiped. It would be less of a bind than what Ripper and
Nomenclatura do to data.
> Have yo considered that may be there are ways
> that software can damage hardwarre that no
> one has yet thought about?
Look at the subject line again:
CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
You can speculate all you like, but the answer to the question is
that there is no virus that can damage hardware.
> Please think about that before you flame back.
I don't think you have been flamed. Discussion gets rather
robust in here, but a flame is more than that.
Iolo Davidson
In article <3187dcff...@news.huji.ac.il>
lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 96 12:50:42 GMT, Iolo Davidson
> <io...@mist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
> > "damage to hardware"? But anyway, there is no virus that does
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >this.
>
> Why do you use question mark?
It was a rhetorical question. The answer, for those who need it,
is, "no, reprogramming a reprogrammable chip does not constitute
damage to hardware".
> At least one motherboard (*) has no write protect.
I was told by a Toshiba chappie, when I researched this, that all
of their notebooks use flash eproms, and none of them have write
protect. The guy said that was common for all makes of notebook
computer. I agree that it is a very bad idea.
> No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
> the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
> computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
> for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
> this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
No. I would call this an improperly programmed reprogrammable
chip, which can be put right by properly reprogramming the chip.
The hardware isn't damaged in any way.
> And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
> should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
> malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
> a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
No. You will argue next that viruses damage monitors by
displaying "Your computer is Stoned", on the grounds that
displaying text requires the cathode emitters to emit electrons,
and that this shortens their life. That is true, but it is what
the emitters are designed to do.
ALL viruses steal resources, memory, disk space, cpu cycles,
everything. That does not constitute damage, just additional
wear and tear over that caused by the use of authorised software.
If a virus appears that successfully rewrites flash eproms in any
significant proportion of existing computer stock, it will
indeed be a major headache. I for one will be screaming "I told
you so!" at the top of my voice. But it won't be hardware
damage.
Boudewijn W. Ch. Visser
a0...@gate.net (a000) writes:
>: prove me wrong, but nobody has. I should also add into the above paragraph
>: (the one I wrote) that the hardware is current and the OS is something
>: mainstream (DOS/Windoze/OS-2/Mac), etc.
>Assume you include UNIX/Linux? If so, please let me know how much
>you will pay for the info, and I will send you the bank account to
>which you can post it :), after of course, you test out the method.
>Assume you have a monitor you do not need :)
If you are referring to damaging a monitor by running it out of spec,
although this is reported as a danger when fiddling with Xconfig's,
it seems to be rather dependent on the monitor. (And of course,on the
videocard).
In any case,there is no config that can be set by X that cannot be set
by a small DOS program also.
X is just a convenient way to set syncs and frequencys.
Boudewijn
>Sarah
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Boudewijn Visser |E-mail:vis...@ph.tn.tudelft.nl |finger for |
|Dep. of Applied Physics,Delft University of Technology |PGP-key |
+-- my own opinions etc --------------------------------------------+
asmf...@wwa.com
Someone way back when wrote:
> CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
<<garbage deleted>>
AsmFiend's $0.02
As to the flash-bios thread, can you make the flash-bios eeprom
unusable after reprogramming it once? That is, does it damage the
hardware?
How about this: Suppose I wrote a virus to put in a setup password so
you couldn't access the built-in setup program. Suppose that I then
reprogram the BIOS to boot only from the C: drive (no A:, no bootable
CDROM, no booting from networks). Next, I fill the MBR with a bunch
of JMP $ instructions. How is that different than reprogramming the
BIOS?
Neither can be fixed by software alone. Both require hardware changes
to be 'fixed.' On one, you replace some chips; on the other, you
replace the hard drive. Or jumper. Point it, some bit of hardware
has to be changed to fix the problem.
IMHO, neither qualify as hardware damage. Royal pain in the ass to
fix? Yes, but not hardware damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way I know of physically causing hardware damage via software
is to reprogram the video card to go beyond the specs of the monitor.
This is, however, not possible if the monitor is matched to the
maximum output specs of the video card.
On ancient MDA/CGA/EGA systems, it was quite easy for me to cause the
monitor to squeal, buzz, and apparently overheat. In high school,
after reading about CRCT registers and reading an article in a
magazine about putting 26 or 27 lines on the text screen, I started
randomly playing with CRCT registers. I tried to find a way to get
thirty lines in text mode, but unfortunately, the experiment took out
a CGA card after half hour when a fellow classmate ran my program.
During that time, the squealing from the monitor that was worse than
fingernails on chalkboard. The stench of burning electronics was
unmistakable and no user in their right mind would have left a monitor
on that makes that kind of noise or puts out the smell of burning
ozone. Needless to say, my fellow classmate had rocks for brains
since he let the stupid monitor burn out, but it took HALF AN HOUR to
do it.
In more modern times, a fixed frequency monitor could possibly be made
to burn out, but I've never gotten the loud squealing or the white-hot
glowing electron gun that I was able to get out of the CGA monitor by
reprogramming the CRTC registers. I seriously doubt that I could find
a combination of CRTC registers that would cause permanent damage to a
VGA monitor. That doesn't mean that the magic combination doesn't
exist, but it wouldn't do the damage fast enough (unless the user also
had rocks for brains) to be worth putting into a virus.
Multi-sync monitors; forget it. They adjust to the sync rate you
reprogram the CRTC to. If the CRTC chip generates an impossible sync
rate, they appear to either multiply or divide the actual rate up/down
to an in-spec rate that the monitor can handle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
asmf...@wwa.com
George Wenzel
In article <4mhsh3$7...@kirin.wwa.com>, asmf...@wwa.com () wrote:
>> CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
>
><<garbage deleted>>
>
>AsmFiend's $0.02
>
>As to the flash-bios thread, can you make the flash-bios eeprom
>unusable after reprogramming it once? That is, does it damage the
>hardware?
I don't know a lot about EEPROMs, but I'd assume that they can be reprogrammed
more than once, with a limited number of reprograms. Reprogramming the EEPROM
wouldn't really do any damage - it'd simply use the hardware until it's normal
lifetime was up.
>
>How about this: Suppose I wrote a virus to put in a setup password so
>you couldn't access the built-in setup program. Suppose that I then
>reprogram the BIOS to boot only from the C: drive (no A:, no bootable
>CDROM, no booting from networks). Next, I fill the MBR with a bunch
>of JMP $ instructions. How is that different than reprogramming the
>BIOS?
It's easy to reverse - setup passwords can be manually reset by popping the
hood, and the MBR can be fixed with relative ease. Reprogramming a BIOS chip
is a little different, since a BIOS chip doesn't have as many rewrites in it's
lifetime as the MBR.
>
>Neither can be fixed by software alone. Both require hardware changes
>to be 'fixed.' On one, you replace some chips; on the other, you
>replace the hard drive. Or jumper. Point it, some bit of hardware
>has to be changed to fix the problem.
But just because hardware has to be changed doesn't constitute 'damage'.
Placing a password in the BIOS is easy enough to remove (providing the BIOS
supports a hardware reset - most that I've seen do), and reprogramming an
EEPROM chip simply expends the lifetime of the chip, which is shorter than for
most computer parts.
>
>IMHO, neither qualify as hardware damage. Royal pain in the ass to
>fix? Yes, but not hardware damage.
Indeed. Yes, they'd be hard to fix (except the BIOS password, which is pretty
easy), but they certainly aren't damage.
>The only way I know of physically causing hardware damage via software
>is to reprogram the video card to go beyond the specs of the monitor.
This isn't really possible with modern hardware, though. Some have proposed
that it's possible on Linux, but I believe in that case it only works with
specific monitors and video card combinations.
>On ancient MDA/CGA/EGA systems, it was quite easy for me to cause the
>monitor to squeal, buzz, and apparently overheat. In high school,
>after reading about CRCT registers and reading an article in a
>magazine about putting 26 or 27 lines on the text screen, I started
>randomly playing with CRCT registers. I tried to find a way to get
>thirty lines in text mode, but unfortunately, the experiment took out
>a CGA card after half hour when a fellow classmate ran my program.
>During that time, the squealing from the monitor that was worse than
>fingernails on chalkboard. The stench of burning electronics was
>unmistakable and no user in their right mind would have left a monitor
>on that makes that kind of noise or puts out the smell of burning
>ozone. Needless to say, my fellow classmate had rocks for brains
>since he let the stupid monitor burn out, but it took HALF AN HOUR to
>do it.
Of course, that's in the 'good old days'... a SVGA card and monitor wouldn't
really do this.
>In more modern times, a fixed frequency monitor could possibly be made
>to burn out, but I've never gotten the loud squealing or the white-hot
>glowing electron gun that I was able to get out of the CGA monitor by
>reprogramming the CRTC registers. I seriously doubt that I could find
>a combination of CRTC registers that would cause permanent damage to a
>VGA monitor. That doesn't mean that the magic combination doesn't
>exist, but it wouldn't do the damage fast enough (unless the user also
>had rocks for brains) to be worth putting into a virus.
Indeed. I doubt that a modern monitor could be programmed to blow up
(overheat, etc.) via software. The manufacturers of these hardware devices
put quite a lot of time into protecting against these sorts of things. As you
say, any sort of register reprogramming would take so long (probably a few
weeks or so) that it wouldn't really constitute damage - it'd simply be
running the monitor at maximum capacity until its lifetime ended and the
monitor would have to go to the big computer room in the sky. :-)
>
>Multi-sync monitors; forget it. They adjust to the sync rate you
>reprogram the CRTC to. If the CRTC chip generates an impossible sync
>rate, they appear to either multiply or divide the actual rate up/down
>to an in-spec rate that the monitor can handle.
Indeed. Multisync monitors would definitely not have this problem.
Regards,
George Wenzel
Moshe Litvin
On Thu, 02 May 96 05:41:59 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George
Wenzel) wrote:
>In article <3187dcaf...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 96 03:28:02 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George
>>Wenzel) wrote:
>>
>>>Improper programming, that's a different matter. If you can prove it, please
>>>do so, but this thread has been around for years, and we've seen every which
>>>way it's been argued. So far, nobody has been able to find out a way for
>>>software to damage current hardware. This is assuming the person is using
>>>properly manufactured, non-defective hardware.
>>
>>Why are you ignoring the flash rom problem? Do you ignore that simply
>>because it contradicts your believes? Have yo considered that may be
>>there are ways that software can damage hardwarre that no one has yet
>>thought about?
>
>I've considered the flash ROM problem, and I don't know enough about flash ROM
>to make any educated comments, so I avoid them.
Yet you write "we've seen every which way it's been argued.". I would
suggest that you try to learn a little more about the subject since it
may the way for the first hardware damaging virus (much more likely
than my crazy idea about sound cards).
>Isn't there a hardware-based method of resetting a flash ROM?
I don't think so. Decent manufactures place some of the BIOS in real
ROM, a part that allows you to reload the flash ROM, but it is not
inherent to flash ROM design.
>And aside from that, the data within ROM is software, not hardware. It's
>possible for software to rewrite the flash ROM, but that isn't damaging the
>hardware itself - just rewriting the code held within the ROM.
I will refer you to http://www.mrbios.com/ftp/big_risk.txt where you
can learn that some poor owners of a certain kind of motherboards
would have to throw them away if their flash BIOS content got
defective. I would call that a hardware damage. I know that the only
thing is a change in software, but if the result means that you HAVE
TO but new hardware - it is hardware damage.
>>A few month ago I sugested the idea of damaging hardware (and other
>>objects) using a sound card and a speaker. I believe that you refered
>>to the idea of sound causing hardware damage as an urban myth, which
>>shows that you know even less physics than I do. Sound energy (even in
>>the hearing range) can (under certain circumstances) break things.
>
>I'm not sure if it was I who said that sound causing damage being an urban
>myth, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. I admit that I know very little
>about physics (I never took it in high school, in favor of the social
>sciences).
>
>>That is a FACT. I do not think that common sound cards and speakers
>>are good enough for it but the idea has two intersting points:
>
>Can you provide some evidence from sound technicians to back up your claim?
Do I need to? that phenomena is well known. Ella fitchgerald (I
probably has to many spelling mistakes to count) broke glasses with
it's voice. I am not claiming that it is a fact that computer sound
cards can do it, only that in general sound can do it.
>I suppose it might be possible, but I do doubt it. The speakers would have to
>be 10 feet high to put out that much power to cause hardware damage. And even
>so, that's not software causing damage to hardware, at least not directly -
>it's hardware (the speakers) causing damage to other hardware.
OK, it is time for a short physics lesson. Sound is vibration of air.
Strong vibration can break things. I believe that those facts are both
known and understandable. But this doesn't prove my point. You can
claim:
1. Sound (at normal volume) is a very weak vibration of air.
2. In order to break things you need very strong vibration.
3. You need very strong sound to create strong vibration in objects.
4. Therefore you need a very strong sound (10 feet high speakers) to
break things.
Well 1,2 and even 4 are correct. The surprising thing is that 3 is
not. This is because of a physical phenomena called resonance:
Consider a guitar cord. When you pull it and release the cord it will
vibrate. The frequency of the vibration does not depend on the power
that you used to pull the cord. It depends only on the characteristics
of the cord. By vibrating the cord create sound at that same
frequency. If you want proves - open the radio and listen to some
music.
Now suppose that you play the same sound to the cord. The sound is air
vibration, air moves forward and backwards at the frequency of the
sound. when it moves forward it pushes the cord, and when it moves
backwards it pulls it. The air vibration are very gentle. At first the
air pushes the cord very little, when the air stops pushing the cord
returns, and then (because of it's vibrating nature) will return to
the same direction, as it was when the air pushed. Under normal
circumstances it would return to the almost the same place as it was
when it was push. But now when the cord returns, the air start pushing
again (remember - sound at the same frequency the cord tends to
vibrate). Therefore the cord will go a little beyond that point. And
in the next cycle it will go beyond that. That way the very gentle
vibration of the air produce much stronger vibration of the cord.
Other object behave in the same way. And therefore sound at a normal
volume can produce noticeable vibration in object if the sound is in
the resonance frequency of the object. (I often notice the windows in
my house vibrating quite strongly because of some sound in the street
that happen to be in their resonance frequency).
I hope that this will convince you that "Sound energy (even in the
hearing range) can (under certain circumstances) break things.".
It doesn't mean that it is easy, or that it can be done with common
equipment. There is no practical way of knowing the resonance
frequency of a complex object. To make strong vibration to object you
should be able to guess quite accurately the resonance frequency (you
can try man frequencies and hope that one will work). And you need
pretty strong sound.
I don't know enough physics to know what is needed for it to work. But
I think that the idea is interesting, and that it is enough to prove
that you can't easily claim that there won't be a hardware damaging
virus.
>>1. The better the hardware the more likely it is to cause damage.
>
>It it's a large speaker, then I suppose the likelyhood of it causing damage
>would be higher.
More than large speakers, is the ability to produce very stable sound
at various frequencies. But the interesting part is that the argument
of outdated obsolete hardware is reversed.
>>2. You hadn't thought about it, other hadn't. Is there any other thing
>>that you haven't thought about? can you be sure?
>
>There are many things I haven't thought about, and I'm sure of that. There
>will always be many things I haven't thought about, and I admit that. I'm
>simply saying that I believe that the restrictions upon what software can do
I can't argue about believes. But remember this is only a believe, it
is not proven by facts (it is supported by facts, but none of these
facts proves it).
>to hardware are strict enough to prevent software damage of current hardware.
>So far, nobody has disproven my theory, so I consider it reasonably supported.
>I can't prove that software and viruses will never damage hardware, but it is
>possible to disprove my theory by showing some software that can damage
>current equipment.
Well, I can't even imagine what a proof that hardware damaging viruses
will never exist will look like. do you? But it is easy to imagine a
contrary fact (showing such a virus). That is: if you are right, you
will never be able to prove it. If you are wrong, chances are that
someone will be able to prove it.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Moshe Litvin
On Thu, 02 May 96 05:47:02 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George
Wenzel) wrote:
>In article <3187dcff...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
[snip]
>>Why do you use question mark? At least one motherboard (*) has no
>>write protect. No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
>>the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Last time I checked, data was software, not hardware. Software that does this
>wouldn't really be damaging the hardware, just rewriting some software.
>
>>computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
>>for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
>>this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
>
>It's a debatable point.
Lets see: You have a working computer. You run some software and as a
consequences your computer stop functioning in such way that you have
to replace hardware. I would call it hardware damage. A peace of
hardware was once functioning, and later not, in a way that you can't
fix by software. It is hardware damage. Unless, of course, you define
hardware damage as something caused by hardware ;-)
> I would consider the fact that the BIOS ROM could not
>be manually reset a design flaw, and by your words it isn't something that's
>used in a lot of motherboards.
I hadn't said anything of that sort. It seems reasonable, but I hadn't
conducted any kind of survey, and correct me if I am wrong neither did
you.
>>And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
>>should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
>>malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
>>a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
>
>No, it would not destroy the chip. It would simply tell the chip to do what
>it is designed to do, until it reached its designed lifetime. Software can
>also cause HD heads to randomly seek for months on end until the drive fails,
>but that isn't really hardware damage, since the hardware is meant to do that
>anyhow.
A flash ROM has thousands of rewrites. I think that under normal
circumstances you wouldn't upgrade the BIOS more than (in avarage)
once a month. Which gives it hundredth of years to operate. A malware
(or bugware) can destroy it in few minutes. It is a different scale
than HD. Any way, as I said before:
You have a working computer. You run some software and as a
consequences your computer stop functioning in such way that you have
to replace hardware.
Everything else is details.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Moshe Litvin
On Fri, 03 May 96 17:01:50 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3187dcaf...@news.huji.ac.il>
> lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 96 03:28:02 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>> (George Wenzel) wrote:
>>
>> Why are you ignoring the flash rom problem? Do you ignore that
>> simply because it contradicts your believes?
>
>I'm not ignoring it, in fact I had an article about it published
>in the Guardian (a UK national newspaper) a couple of years ago,
>in which I raised the problem of viruses or other malicious
>programs corrupting flash BIOSes, and warned that motherboard
>that used them needed to have hardware write protect switches.
>
>But it still isn't hardware damage. It is just reprogramming.
>Flash eproms are designed to be reprogrammed. If they are
>reprogrammed improperly, they can be reprogrammed again,
>properly. It would be a bind, but then so is having your disk
>wiped. It would be less of a bind than what Ripper and
>Nomenclatura do to data.
Not always true. Please have a look at
http://www.mrbios.com/ftp/big_risk.txt
At short, when you have a non functional BIOS, you cannot boot the
computer and load a program to reprogram the BIOS. Smart design should
have that utility in real ROM, but apparently not every manufacture
does it. If in addition the BIOS is soldered directly onto the system
board, then if the BIOS get corrupted, you can throw the system board.
No antivirus software or any other software can save you.
>> Have yo considered that may be there are ways
>> that software can damage hardwarre that no
>> one has yet thought about?
>
>Look at the subject line again:
>
> CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
>
>You can speculate all you like, but the answer to the question is
>that there is no virus that can damage hardware.
I think that you should look again at the subject line. It doesn't
says "Is there a virus that do hardware damage?".
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Moshe Litvin
On Fri, 03 May 96 17:12:41 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3187dcff...@news.huji.ac.il>
> lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 96 12:50:42 GMT, Iolo Davidson
>> <io...@mist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > Does reprogramming a reprogrammable chip constitute
>> > "damage to hardware"? But anyway, there is no virus that does
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >this.
>>
>> Why do you use question mark?
>
>It was a rhetorical question. The answer, for those who need it,
>is, "no, reprogramming a reprogrammable chip does not constitute
>damage to hardware".
>
>> At least one motherboard (*) has no write protect.
>
>I was told by a Toshiba chappie, when I researched this, that all
>of their notebooks use flash eproms, and none of them have write
>protect. The guy said that was common for all makes of notebook
>computer. I agree that it is a very bad idea.
>
>> No part of the bios in real ROM and no way to replace
>> the flash bios. If the bios data is damaged, you cannot boot the
>> computer and cannot load the program that fixes the bios, therefore
>> for any practical purpose the motherboard is useless. I would call
>> this a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
>
>No. I would call this an improperly programmed reprogrammable
>chip, which can be put right by properly reprogramming the chip.
>The hardware isn't damaged in any way.
But at least in this situation you simply cannot do it. If you could
reprogram it would be another thing. But at least in this case there
is no practical way of reprogramming the chip.
>> And not to mention that flash ROM has a limited number of rewrites. It
>> should be more then enough to reprogram a BIOS, but some sort of
>> malware can do a enough rewrite to destroy the chip. I would call that
>> a hardware damage, wouldn't you?
>
>No. You will argue next that viruses damage monitors by
>displaying "Your computer is Stoned", on the grounds that
>displaying text requires the cathode emitters to emit electrons,
>and that this shortens their life. That is true, but it is what
>the emitters are designed to do.
Cars bumpers are designed to be broken in car accident. On that ground
wouldn't you say that they are not damaged in accident because it is
what they are designed to do?
>ALL viruses steal resources, memory, disk space, cpu cycles,
>everything. That does not constitute damage, just additional
>wear and tear over that caused by the use of authorised software.
A virus that would try to wear and tear over a HD would destroy in a
matter of months a hardware that under normal use should function
several years. Doing it to a flash BIOS would destroy it in a matter
of minutes, when otherwise it should take hundreds of years (assuming
that under normal use you won't upgrade the BIOS much more than once a
month). The difference is huge.
>If a virus appears that successfully rewrites flash eproms in any
>significant proportion of existing computer stock, it will
>indeed be a major headache. I for one will be screaming "I told
>you so!" at the top of my voice. But it won't be hardware
>damage.
How do you define a hardware damage? I think that every thing that in
a reasonable amount of time cause a damage that needs to be fixed by
replacing/fixing hardware is a hardware damage.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Daniel L. Bates
In article <318d2ee9...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il
says...
>>
>I will refer you to http://www.mrbios.com/ftp/big_risk.txt where you
>can learn that some poor owners of a certain kind of motherboards
>would have to throw them away if their flash BIOS content got
>defective. I would call that a hardware damage. I know that the only
>thing is a change in software, but if the result means that you HAVE
>TO but new hardware - it is hardware damage.
>
reprogramm it and solder the new/reprogrammed chip in, well, if it's not
hardware damage I wonder about some folks. I guess if smoke doesn't pour out
of the machine with blue flames it ain't hurt.
Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez
Gene Wirchenko (ge...@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:
: >In article <4m7t1c$r...@seminole.gate.net>, a0...@gate.net (a000) wrote:
: >>George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: >>
: >>: If you claim that software can cause damage to a monitor, then
provide some
: >>: sort of concrete proof for your claim. We've heard this argument
from many
The program that installs the X-windows server in my Linux warns
specifically about fixed scanning frequency monitors, saying that
even the test can damage them. If a normal program can do that,
why not a virus?
*********************************************************************
* Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez //there is a bg in this line *
* Universitaet Hamburg, Germany //Nobody expects... *
* pz4...@rrz.uni-hamburg.de //..the Spanish Inquisition! *
*********************************************************************
George Wenzel
In article <4mn08f$l...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>, pz4...@rzaix05.uni-hamburg.de (Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez) wrote:
>The program that installs the X-windows server in my Linux warns
>specifically about fixed scanning frequency monitors, saying that
>even the test can damage them. If a normal program can do that,
>why not a virus?
Why do you believe that it is possible simply because of the warning?
Manufacturers do tend to be very careful, and they put warnings about things
that could never cause damage, on the grounds that if it ever happened, their
asses would be covered and they could blame the user. I've heard about Linux
installation problems, but as far as I know, any damage that they do is only
to a narrow field of monitors (low-end ones, mainly), and only with certain
video cards. Most current monitors are multisyncs, which means they are
totally immune to that problem.
George Wenzel
In article <831402...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Do I need to? that phenomena is well known. Ella fitchgerald (I
>> probably has to many spelling mistakes to count) broke glasses with
>> it's voice.
>
>myths are simultaneously well known and untrue.
I tend to agree that it is possible for sound to cause objects to break, but
highly unlikely that computer equipment could produce such a sound to damage
other equipment. It's not really an urban myth -- I did some research in the
physics department, and they all pretty much agreed that it was possible with
sound in general, but not possible with computer hardware.
Robert Michael Slade
All right. To be totally pedantic about it:
1) Can a virus do physical damage to computer hardware?
No. There is no virus which does any such thing.
2) Can a virus do something to a computer which mimics physical damage?
Yes. A Michelangelo hit is often mistaken for a hard drive failure.
Also, viruses that use a standard low-level format call on an IDE drive
create unpredictable problems which may resemble a hard drive failure.
3) Could a piece of software cause physical damage to computer hardware?
Yes. Depending upon how you define computer, and in a very limited and
restricted way, and only with the connivance of the most phenomenally
stupid of users, but yes.
An older model of an MCGA card (and possibly also one older Hercules
model) could be set by software to have a zero sweep rate. This meant
that the phosphor gun could be aimed at a particular spot on the screen
and, over a period of hours or days, "burn in" a spot. (Only older
monitors are susceptible to this, but I doubt that very many people have
ever seen these adapter cards recently.)
Some impact printers could be programmed to repeatedly type without
moving the head or the platten. This would damage the platten and, over
time, the head.
On some disk drives, stepping the head beyond the spec limits would
affect the alignment. (On others, it was a good way to get additional
disk space.)
All of the possibilities cited are specific to limited models of
hardware, and depend upon running the computer for long periods of time,
without the user becoming aware of oddities in visual or audible cues.
Christopher MADGWICK
I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
Leprosey.
Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
with a virus and two days later i am ill.
Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
when using a computer when infected with a virus.
If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
Chris
Bruce Burrell
Christopher MADGWICK (sis...@sis.port.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
> program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
> Leprosey.
>
> Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
> Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
> with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
> Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
> when using a computer when infected with a virus.
You know, this happened to me, too. I installed a word processor a
few weeks ago, and just used it to write a letter. Wouldn't you know
it? Within a day or two, I wrote a letter by hand, too! It gets worse.
I played a game on the computer, and that very same day, played a game
that didn't even use a computer at all. It's pernicious, I tell you.
Just a bit more confirmation that this pertains particularly with
computer viruses: over the past little while, I've been organizing my
Bestiary of the little nasties, and just this weekend past, we went to the
Minnesota Zoo. Coincidence? You be the judge.
No wonder I've been feeling under the weather lately; I -really- feel
sorry for folks to have to spend untold hours with computer viruses.
You haven't noticed any nodular skin lesions or nerve paralysis, have
you? Good.
> If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
Contact you where? I didn't know that Bedlam had IP connectivity.
-BPB (who can't -wait- for CARO to name a virus "Jaundice")
George Wenzel
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960508112056.9406A-100000@anubis>, Christopher MADGWICK <sis...@sis.port.ac.uk> wrote:
>I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
>program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
>Leprosey.
>
>Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
>Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
>with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
>Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
>when using a computer when infected with a virus.
Absolutely. A radiation suit is optional, but highly recommended.
>
>If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
You must be especially careful to wear protective equipment when handling an
infectious computer, especially if you're touching the mouse balls or rubber
feet, which are especially infected.
Robert Michael Slade
: Christopher MADGWICK (sis...@sis.port.ac.uk) wrote:
No, no! You guys are all making fun of him! But this is *TRUE*! Don't
you remember the article in "Weekly World News"? And then they had a
*real live case* which was featured in "Tekwars"!
And don't try to avoid getting a virus infection by simply wearing vinyl
medical gloves. They have holes which are too small for normal
biological viruses, but easily big enough to pass the electrons of which
computer viruses are made. Get linemans gloves, which are thick enough
that electrons won't get through.
Bruce Burrell (b...@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu) wrote:
: -BPB (who can't -wait- for CARO to name a virus "Jaundice")
OK, I'll bite. Why "Jaundice"?
(For anyone (including the original author) who may be taking *any* of
this seriously: no, organic entities cannot run bytecode (we have a
different operating system :-) and computer viruses bear very little
similarity to biological viruses. The only way to get a virus from a
computer is if the user before you sneezed all over the keyboard.)
Pat
Those mouse balls and rubber feet can be dangerous, but don't forget the hazards
presented by ordinary kitchen appliances also. I spent yesterday in the emergency
room at our local hospital with my daughter, who was in excruciating pain with a
fever of 102 degrees. The diagnosis is a combination of strep throat (precursor to
scarlet fever) and tonsilitis. I thought at first that she had just picked up the
germs in the usual way, but now I realize that it was my negligence that caused this.
When I downloaded the monthly update of my anti-virus program, I neglected to install
it in the toaster and microwave oven, which she often uses. Thanks to alt.comp.virus,
I now know how to be a better parent.
Pat Reskey
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <4mqu4l$u...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) writes:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960508112056.9406A-100000@anubis>, Christopher MADGWICK <sis...@sis.port.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
>>program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
>>Leprosey.
>>
>>Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
>>Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
>>with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>>
>>Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
>>when using a computer when infected with a virus.
>
>Absolutely. A radiation suit is optional, but highly recommended.
>
>>
>>If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
>
>You must be especially careful to wear protective equipment when handling an
>infectious computer, especially if you're touching the mouse balls or rubber
>feet, which are especially infected.
And you should always wear asbestos underpants when accessing the
internet, especially alt.flame.
Can a computer virus make a human ill? No, no and yes. Obviously, no
computer virus can have any direct effect on a human. But sometimes we
virus experts forget the stress that ordinary guys get when they forst
encounter a virus. It can be quite worrying, especially if you've read a
few of the scarier nightmare stories (which are mostly fiction). And
stress, of course, can contribute to a deterioration in human health.
I was once on a virus-hunt at a big financial company, and the head of
computer security actually collapsed in the middle of the exercise and
had to stay at home for the next few days. And I put that down to the very
stressful situation he suddenly found himself in.
--
Dr Alan Solomon, Chairman of AuthenTec Data Recovery
US tel (617) 273 7400 UK tel +44 1296 318700
Files: http://www.drsolomon.com CIS: GO DRSOLOMON AOL: VIRUS
Email: drso...@drsolomon.com CIS: 101377,3677 AOL: DrASolly
Personal: drs...@ibmpcug.co.uk http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
George Wenzel
In article <4mrc6u$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rachel Elisabeth Gibson) wrote:
>What kind of drugs are you on? And where could I get some?
>There is no way you can possibly get a computer virus, because a virus is
>a man made program designed to damage your hard drive, but in your case
>I'd stay away from it for a while...
Apparantly someone removed your humor chip.
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <831574...@mist.demon.co.uk>, Iolo Davidson (io...@mist.demon.co.uk) writes:
>In article <4mo8cn$o...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
> gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca "George Wenzel" writes:
>
>> In article <831402...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >> (I probably has to many spelling mistakes to count) broke
>> >> glasses with it's voice.
>> >
>> >myths are simultaneously well known and untrue.
>>
>> I tend to agree that it is possible for sound to cause objects to
>> break, but highly unlikely that computer equipment could produce
>> such a sound to damage other equipment. It's not really an urban
>> myth -- I did some research in the physics department, and they
>> all pretty much agreed that it was possible with sound in
>> general, but not possible with computer hardware.
>
>believe the ability has been attributed to more than one) was
>able to do this with the human voice. The claim is often
>repeated, but apparently cannot be traced to a real incident.
>
>I agree that it might be possible to demonstrate this effect with
>specialised equipment, but not with the human voice, or a
>computer speaker, and probably not even with domestic hi-fi
>equipment. We never seem to hear of hi-fi damage to glass
>objects in the home, at any rate. The thing that usually gets
>damaged by hi-fi is the speakers themselves.
I saw it once in a Marx Brothers film, so it must be true.
David Harley
Christopher MADGWICK (sis...@sis.port.ac.uk) wrote:
: I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
: program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
: Leprosey.
: Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
: Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
: with a virus and two days later i am ill.
: Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
: when using a computer when infected with a virus.
: If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
Troll over Beethoven? It would have been a more impressive coincidence
if you'd been diagnosed as a leper........ I suggest that you try to
avoid exchanging body fluids with any computer on your first date.
--
David Harley <har...@icrf.icnet.uk>
Support & Security Analyst
Imperial Cancer Research Fund
Moshe Litvin
On Mon, 06 May 96 22:34:45 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[snip]
>Soldering in a flash chip with no simple recovery method if it
>gets corrupted would be foolish, yes, just like not having a
>write protect switch, but it still isn't *damaged*. It has got a
>corrupted program, no more.
>
>Chips can be removed even when they are soldered in, put into
>whatever equipment is used to program them originally, and then
>replaced in the board.
Since the fixing involves so much hardware work (soldering a surface
mount chip) I would say that anything that cause so mush hardware
repair had to done some hardware damage.
>Not economic? Don't know, but that
>doesn't affect the issue. The chip is still undamaged, it has
>just had its program corrupted, and it can be reprogrammed. It
>is designed for that.
It usual for a hardware to be considered damaged when only a minor
damaged occurred, but it is still not worth fixing. There are digital
clocks with no way to replace a battery. They are designed to be
thrown away when the battery is finished. I think when the battery
runs out in such a clock you would say that the clock is in a perfect
working order since:
1. It is what the clock is designed to do.
2. You could in theory cut the case and replace a battery.
A hardware is consider destroyed when it is not economical to fix it.
>> >> Have yo considered that may be there are ways
>> >> that software can damage hardwarre that no
>> >> one has yet thought about?
>> >
>> >Look at the subject line again:
>> >
>> > CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
>> >
>> >You can speculate all you like, but the answer to the question is
>> >that there is no virus that can damage hardware.
>>
>> I think that you should look again at the subject line. It doesn't
>> says "Is there a virus that do hardware damage?".
>
>So tell me what virus can damage hardware? Today, that is.
>"Can" is present tense. If the question was about future
>possibilities, it would be "could". There aren't any that "can".
I wrote an answer for that, but deleted it. That part of the
discussion leads to nowhere. I hadn't started it, but I don't want to
continue it.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Bruce Burrell
David Harley (har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk) wrote:
> Christopher MADGWICK (sis...@sis.port.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
> : program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
> : Leprosey.
>
> : Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
> : Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
> : with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
> : Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
> : when using a computer when infected with a virus.
>
> : If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
>
> Troll over Beethoven?
No; I think you get that from Musicbug.
> It would have been a more impressive coincidence if you'd been diagnosed
> as a leper........
Indeed.
> I suggest that you try to avoid exchanging body fluids with any computer
> on your first date.
:-)
Or, if this message isn't a troll, with anyone or thing else. And
maybe even if it is.
-BPB
Norman Hirsch
>
>I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
>program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
>Leprosey.
>
>Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
>Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
>with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
>Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
>when using a computer when infected with a virus.
>
>If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
Human viruses take time to incubate. In the case of PCs, that time
is shortened due to the increased MHZ. So it's very likely you had
the virus first. How do you know you didn't give it to the computer?
In such case we might need to send in the CDC.
Bill Larson will coordinate the Clean-up.
--
Norman Hirsch Fax: 212-304-9759
NH&A anti-virus, security, network management BBS: 212-304-9759,,,,,,,3
577 Isham St. # 2-B CompuServe: 72115,661
New York, NY 10034 Internet: nhi...@nha.com
Phone: 212-304-9660 URL: http://www.nha.com
George Wenzel
>>Chips can be removed even when they are soldered in, put into
>>whatever equipment is used to program them originally, and then
>>replaced in the board.
>
>Since the fixing involves so much hardware work (soldering a surface
>mount chip) I would say that anything that cause so mush hardware
>repair had to done some hardware damage.
Your logic is just a bit flawed. Just because you have to remove the hardware
to fix it, doesn't mean that the hardware is damaged. You just don't have the
appropriate hardware and software on your computer, to rewrite the software on
the chip. It's the software on a flash ROM chip that you want to fix, not the
chip itself.
Simply because you have to remove the hardware to fix the software has nothing
to do with the hardware itself being damaged.
>
>>Not economic? Don't know, but that
>>doesn't affect the issue. The chip is still undamaged, it has
>>just had its program corrupted, and it can be reprogrammed. It
>>is designed for that.
>
>It usual for a hardware to be considered damaged when only a minor
>damaged occurred, but it is still not worth fixing. There are digital
>clocks with no way to replace a battery. They are designed to be
>thrown away when the battery is finished.
And are they damaged when the battery life is spent? No -- they've just ended
their operating life.
>I think when the battery
>runs out in such a clock you would say that the clock is in a perfect
>working order since:
> 1. It is what the clock is designed to do.
> 2. You could in theory cut the case and replace a battery.
>
>A hardware is consider destroyed when it is not economical to fix it.
That's your opinion, but I certainly wouldn't agree. Using the example of the
flash ROM chip, it's not economical to fix it, but that doesn't mean that it's
been destroyed. The data on the chip is corrupt, and the hardware on a PC
isn't capable of reprogramming the original data on to the chip. As such, you
have to either remove and rewrite, or replace the chip. That doesn't mean the
chip is damaged - just that the software on the chip is corrupt.
>>> I think that you should look again at the subject line. It doesn't
>>> says "Is there a virus that do hardware damage?".
>>
>>So tell me what virus can damage hardware? Today, that is.
>>"Can" is present tense. If the question was about future
>>possibilities, it would be "could". There aren't any that "can".
>
>I wrote an answer for that, but deleted it. That part of the
>discussion leads to nowhere. I hadn't started it, but I don't want to
>continue it.
The simple answer is that there isn't a virus currently that can damage
hardware. One could exist that could damage certain specific pieces of
hardware, but such a virus would be so limited in its payload and so obvious
that it would never make it into the wild.
CRYLUX
Moshe Litvin (lit...@math.huji.ac.il) wrote:
: On Mon, 06 May 96 22:34:45 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
: wrote:
:
: [snip]
: >Soldering in a flash chip with no simple recovery method if it
: >gets corrupted would be foolish, yes, just like not having a
: >write protect switch, but it still isn't *damaged*. It has got a
: >corrupted program, no more.
: >Chips can be removed even when they are soldered in, put into
: >replaced in the board.
:
: Since the fixing involves so much hardware work (soldering a surface
: mount chip) I would say that anything that cause so mush hardware
: repair had to done some hardware damage.
: >Not economic? Don't know, but that
: >just had its program corrupted, and it can be reprogrammed. It
: >is designed for that.
OK there is Two way to reprogram a chip on board.
1) pull it off the board and put it in a reprogramer and put it back.
2) cut the either the + or - supply rail to the chip
and link the reprogramer to it and reprogram on board.
and repear cut.
2 can only be done if nil of the other chips arould it will be damaged
geting volts while off.(I Have done this with microprocessors not
ON MOTHER BOARDS)
Now Simple Think add a power switch to the bois chip(if it is safe for
it to be reprogramed on board) and next time it happens. It will
be a fast fix no soldering just hook it up and reprogram that chip.
I would not call this hardware dammage but A hardware fualt.
(it can be fixed permently)
A removable bois is a real safty feature against new and nasty virus.
And if some info is right I have got motherboard do have a
write protect switch for the flash bois just that it is not
being used.
Yes A virus can hurt some monitors but if it was set to do so
it would not be that good at it.
Yes there are errors in hardware make up( the makers are human).
Yes these errors in hardware in most case can be fixed.
So A virus doing hardware dammage possiable but if one
did find a way you can guess that the hardware fault would be
fixed(A virus with a verry short life span).
pcdolding
--
_____ _____
/ \ / \
| () () | pdol...@metz.une.edu.au | () () |
\ ^ / ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \ ^ /
||||| | |__| \_/ | | | \_/ |||||
||||| |___ | \ | |___ |___| _/ \_ |||||
Robert Michael Slade
Dr Alan Solomon (drs...@chartridge.win-uk.net) wrote:
:
: >The myth aspect was the claim that one singer or another (I
: >able to do this with the human voice. The claim is often
: >repeated, but apparently cannot be traced to a real incident.
: >
: >I agree that it might be possible to demonstrate this effect with
: >specialised equipment, but not with the human voice, or a
: >computer speaker, and probably not even with domestic hi-fi
: >equipment. We never seem to hear of hi-fi damage to glass
: >objects in the home, at any rate. The thing that usually gets
: >damaged by hi-fi is the speakers themselves.
: I saw it once in a Marx Brothers film, so it must be true.
And in Victor/Victoria they spoof the old joke about a singer having a
voice so strong she could break milk bottles. (Although, if I recall,
they used a champagne bottle. Which is even stronger.)
My wife is a "dramatic" soprano, and, except for the ones I've dropped
while washing, we still have all our glassware. Including some very fine
35 year old crystal. Probably right about the hi-fi equipment, as
evidence note the newer glass speakers. I have, however, seen the
"shatter the wineglass" done in the lab. (Seen at a remove: you don't
want to be in the room while it's happening.)
If I have to say something on topic: do those who insist that
reprogramming a flash BIOS is hardware damage also assert that formatting
a floppy (or even deleting a file) is hardware damage since you have to
use hardware (a computer) to fix it?
Moshe Litvin
On Tue, 07 May 96 05:31:33 GMT, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George
Wenzel) wrote:
>In article <831402...@mist.demon.co.uk>, io...@mist.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>> Do I need to? that phenomena is well known. Ella fitchgerald (I
>>> probably has to many spelling mistakes to count) broke glasses with
>>> it's voice.
>>
>>I have seen this debunked as an early urban myth. Many such
>>myths are simultaneously well known and untrue.
>
>I tend to agree that it is possible for sound to cause objects to break, but
>highly unlikely that computer equipment could produce such a sound to damage
>other equipment. It's not really an urban myth -- I did some research in the
>physics department, and they all pretty much agreed that it was possible with
>sound in general, but not possible with computer hardware.
What do you mean by "pretty much agreed" that is was not possible with
computer hardware? Do you mean that they had a guts feeling that it is
not possible (which I tend to agree), or did they had some facts? By
facts I mean do they know it should take to break hardware? (in terms
of volume, stability, etc)
Any way, it needs much more knowledge to know if it is possible with
off the shelf computer hardware than any of us has, but as the quality
of soundcard becomes better there is greater chance of damage. If/when
it will/did reach a dangerous level nither of us knows
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Larry Dehaan
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960508112056.9406A-100000@anubis>,
Christopher MADGWICK <sis...@sis.port.ac.uk> wrote:
>I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
>program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
>Leprosey.
>
>Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
>Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
>with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
>Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
>when using a computer when infected with a virus.
Since Leprosy isn't related to Scarlet Fever, it's unlikely. However,
if it's a polymorphic virus, it may have mutated to a different form.
Just to be on the safe side, you should be treated for both Leprosy
and Scarlet Fever.
Your computer should be quarrantined and treated with a strong AV
"antibiotic".
In the future, remember to practice "safe hex"!
<ggg>
--
=LDH=
Moshe Litvin
On Thu, 09 May 96 16:57:28 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>The hardware was not damaged, and that is all there is to it.
>You seem to be arguing that the difference between hardware
>damage and software corruption depends on whether the chip
>involved is socketed or not.
The hardware was not destroyed. But when you have to use hardware
measures to fix it - it is a hardware damage. The difference between
hardware damage and software damage is in the way of fixing. The
internal causes are only of a theoretical importance. If you have to
solder chips - it is hardware damage. John Doe doesn't care what
exactly happened to the chip. He wants to know if he can fix it with
his favorite AV software - or if he needs to take the computer to
technichian to replace parts.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
Moshe Litvin
On Thu, 09 May 96 17:04:40 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <31911aa4...@news.huji.ac.il>
> lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>
>> The warning is not proof that monitors can be damaged. But saying than
>> no current monitor can be damaged without proof is irresponsible.
>
>Other way round. Claiming that viruses can damage hardware
>without proof is irresponsible scaremongering.
State your opinion, but don't pretend you have facts. You don't and
can't have facts about every current monitor, therefore you can't have
facts to support your thesis. Stating such is such affirmative tone is
misleading. All you have is your believes, so please mention that in
your statements so people can decide weather or not they are wheeling
to accept your beleives. Don't pretend to have facts that you don't
have.
As for the possiblility of hardware damage by malware:
1. Current, well designed monitors and HDD shouldn't be vulnerable.
2. Equipment with flash ROM can be damaged. Some would claim that it
is not hardware damage, but no AV software will be able to rescue you
-- you would have to replace hardware. Make sure that you have write
protect switch.
3. Other ways to attack hardware may be found, Iolo and others doesn't
know anything about them, and therefore can easily say that it will
not work -- but it is ignorant talking. not knoledge (their knoledge
is in viruses and AV -- not hardware which is the real issue here).
Regards
Moshe Litvin
George Wenzel
In article <31961dc5...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>> The warning is not proof that monitors can be damaged. But saying than
>>> no current monitor can be damaged without proof is irresponsible.
>>
>>Other way round. Claiming that viruses can damage hardware
>>without proof is irresponsible scaremongering.
>
>State your opinion, but don't pretend you have facts. You don't and
>can't have facts about every current monitor, therefore you can't have
>facts to support your thesis.
I don't see how Iolo pretended to have facts in the above statement. He was
telling you that you were scaremongering by making your claims without facts.
It's true that one can't have details on every monitor that's made, but one
can assume that they will follow the standards for production. Monitors that
follow the standards are highly unlikely to be damaged by any sort of
software. If a monitor does not follow the standards, it's pretty easy to see
that it'd be of substandard quality, and subject to that sort of attack. One
could easily classify such a monitor as defective, since it isn't produced
according to industry standards.
>Stating such is such affirmative tone is
>misleading. All you have is your believes, so please mention that in
>your statements so people can decide weather or not they are wheeling
>to accept your beleives. Don't pretend to have facts that you don't
>have.
He didn't pretend to have facts - he told you that you had none, which is
completely different. Unless you have proof that software can damage current,
functional hardware, you could easily be seen as scaremongering. He was not
misleading at all; he simply said you had no proof. Do you wish to prove him
wrong by showing your proof?
>
>As for the possiblility of hardware damage by malware:
>1. Current, well designed monitors and HDD shouldn't be vulnerable.
Indeed.
>2. Equipment with flash ROM can be damaged. Some would claim that it
>is not hardware damage, but no AV software will be able to rescue you
>-- you would have to replace hardware. Make sure that you have write
>protect switch.
AV software would be able to prevent such an attack, however, and it isn't
hardware damage, since no hardware is affected. Only the software upon the
hardware is changed. If the hardware isn't changed, it's impossible to damage
it.
>3. Other ways to attack hardware may be found, Iolo and others doesn't
>know anything about them, and therefore can easily say that it will
>not work -- but it is ignorant talking. not knoledge (their knoledge
>is in viruses and AV -- not hardware which is the real issue here).
It's not ignorant talking; it's debate. There is evidence to support the
claim that software cannot damage hardware. There is also evidence to support
the claim that viruses cannot damage future hardware. We're not debating
facts here, we're debating possibilities. Debating facts is pointless, while
debating possibilities helps to explore the issue.
Iolo and I have not been ignorant in our debate; we've simply stated our
opinions and backed them with evidence. I would simply ask that others do the
same, and we'll see what turns up. It's unlikely that we'll come to a
conclusion unless somebody invents a hardware damaging virus.
George Wenzel
In article <31962205...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>The hardware was not damaged, and that is all there is to it.
>>You seem to be arguing that the difference between hardware
>>damage and software corruption depends on whether the chip
>>involved is socketed or not.
>
>The hardware was not destroyed.
Indeed. Factory reprogramming would easily restore it to its original state.
>But when you have to use hardware
>measures to fix it - it is a hardware damage.
>The difference between
>hardware damage and software damage is in the way of fixing.
No, the method of repair has nothing to do with what actually happens within
the hardware. If the hardware is physically altered so that it cannot be
restored to a working state, then it is damaged. If the hardware can be
reprogrammed, it is not damaged, since it can still work. Practicality of
repair has nothing to do with what actually happens, and it does not change
the status of the hardware.
>The
>internal causes are only of a theoretical importance. If you have to
>solder chips - it is hardware damage.
Why? I admit that if you have to solder the chip, it'd be difficult to solve
the problem, but the fact remains that the hardware is not damaged. It can be
returned to its working state.
>John Doe doesn't care what
>exactly happened to the chip. He wants to know if he can fix it with
>his favorite AV software - or if he needs to take the computer to
>technichian to replace parts.
Yes, John Doe doesn't care what happened to the chip, but we (the people
in-the-know) do. You are claiming that a virus could damage hardware via a
FLASH ROM. That calls upon the question of what hardware damage is. Your
definition of hardware damage doesn't make a whole lot of sense - the method
of repair has nothing to do with what actually happened to the hardware.
Admittedly, it has little practical value to the user, but it does have value
to people deciding whether or not it is possible for a virus to damage
hardware.
David B. Hull
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960508112056.9406A-100000@anubis>, Christopher
MADGWICK <sis...@sis.port.ac.uk> wrote:
> I bought a computer about 3 weeks ago and scaned it with a well known
> program that kills viruses, and would you beleive it found one called
> Leprosey.
>
> Two days later i became very ill and the doctor diasgnosed me as having
> Scarlet Fever. But it is very co-insedential that my computer comes down
> with a virus and two days later i am ill.
>
> Do you have to wear any protective equipment e.g gloves or a face mask
> when using a computer when infected with a virus.
>
> If anyone has any advice for me please do not hesitate to contact me..
>
> Chris
Well,
As I have said many times, the analogy between computer viruses
and mammalian viruses is quite exact.
Every floppy that goes in that disk drive has been with every
other floppy in that drive.
Where, pray tell, have you been putting your floppy; and
why are you infecting all the other floppies ?
Practice safe hex - abstenance.
Keep your floppy to yourself
--
David B. Hull http://pages.pomona.edu/~dhull
Robert Michael Slade
Moshe Litvin (lit...@math.huji.ac.il) wrote:
: The hardware was not destroyed. But when you have to use hardware
: measures to fix it - it is a hardware damage. The difference between
So are you saying that deleting a file, which requires hardware (a
computer and a disk drive) to fix the problem, is hardware damage?
: hardware damage and software damage is in the way of fixing. The
: internal causes are only of a theoretical importance. If you have to
: solder chips - it is hardware damage. John Doe doesn't care what
: exactly happened to the chip. He wants to know if he can fix it with
: his favorite AV software - or if he needs to take the computer to
: technichian to replace parts.
Well then, is infection by an overwriting virus--which no AV software can
"fix"--hardware damage?
If you think these questions are silly, that is exactly the point. So is
your assertion that the reprogramming of an undamaged chip constitutes
hardware damage.
Dr Alan Solomon
In article <831969...@mist.demon.co.uk>, Iolo Davidson (io...@mist.demon.co.uk) writes:
>
>As it happens I have designed and built hardware, both computer
>and analogue, and Dr. Solomon even has at least one computer
>hardware patent, but that is beside the point.
>
True, and I suspect that quite a few people are violating it by now.
Moshe Litvin
On Fri, 10 May 96 16:59:25 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3192292...@news.huji.ac.il>
> lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>
>> On Mon, 06 May 96 22:34:45 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >Soldering in a flash chip with no simple recovery method if it
>> >gets corrupted would be foolish, yes, just like not having a
>> >write protect switch, but it still isn't *damaged*. It has got a
>> >corrupted program, no more.
>> >
>> >Chips can be removed even when they are soldered in, put into
>> >whatever equipment is used to program them originally, and then
>> >replaced in the board.
>>
>> Since the fixing involves so much hardware work (soldering a surface
>> mount chip) I would say that anything that cause so mush hardware
>> repair had to done some hardware damage.
>
>So you maintain that malicious reprogramming of a chip that is
>soldered in constitutes hardware damage, but reprogramming the
>same chip when it is fitted in a socket does not?
I maintain that the fact that you have to solder out a chip, means
that it was hardware damage. Software damage can be fixed by software.
Hardware damage must be fixed by hardware.
>
>> >Not economic? Don't know, but that
>> >doesn't affect the issue. The chip is still undamaged, it has
>> >just had its program corrupted, and it can be reprogrammed. It
>> >is designed for that.
>>
>> It usual for a hardware to be considered damaged when only a minor
>> damaged occurred, but it is still not worth fixing. There are digital
>> clocks with no way to replace a battery. They are designed to be
>> thrown away when the battery is finished. I think when the battery
>> runs out in such a clock you would say that the clock is in a perfect
>> working order since:
>> 1. It is what the clock is designed to do.
>> 2. You could in theory cut the case and replace a battery.
>
>Are you maintaining that a clock becomes damaged when its battery
>wears down?
Yes. The clock was once functioning, and is now not functioning. There
was some change in the state of the clock. Changes that cause
something to stop functioning are called damage.
>
>> A hardware is consider destroyed when it is not economical to fix it.
>
>Oh, no. I have perfectly functioning computers which it is not
>even economic for me to turn on. Under your new criteria, a
>computer becomes damaged by not having enough memory expansion
>slots, having an old processor, having small capacity disk
>drives.
The computer are working, not as well as you would like them to, but
they are functioning according to their design specification, hence
they are only outdated and not damaged.
>
>> >> >> Have yo considered that may be there are ways
>> >> >> that software can damage hardwarre that no
>> >> >> one has yet thought about?
>> >> >
>> >> >Look at the subject line again:
>> >> >
>> >> > CAN A VIRUS DO HARDWARE DAMAGE?
>> >> >
>> >> >You can speculate all you like, but the answer to the question is
>> >> >that there is no virus that can damage hardware.
>> >>
>> >> I think that you should look again at the subject line. It doesn't
>> >> says "Is there a virus that do hardware damage?".
>> >
>> >So tell me what virus can damage hardware? Today, that is.
>> >"Can" is present tense. If the question was about future
>> >possibilities, it would be "could". There aren't any that "can".
>>
>> I wrote an answer for that, but deleted it. That part of the
>> discussion leads to nowhere. I hadn't started it, but I don't want to
>> continue it.
>
>That "part" of the discussion is the subject of the thread.
No, that part of the discussion is a meta-discussion about what the
subject of the thread should be. Personally I think that it doesn't
really matter, since if software can damage hardware then every day we
could find a virus that does it. The question if one exist among the
8000 and so viruses is easily answered but I don't think that this is
the whole question.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
>
>--
>SOAPS TURN JOLLY GENTS
> THAT IRRITATE TO JITTERBUGS
> THEIR MUGS Burma-Shave
Moshe Litvin
On 10 May 1996 23:16:59 GMT, rsl...@vcn.bc.ca (Robert Michael Slade)
wrote:
[snip]
>If I have to say something on topic: do those who insist that
>reprogramming a flash BIOS is hardware damage also assert that formatting
>a floppy (or even deleting a file) is hardware damage since you have to
>use hardware (a computer) to fix it?
Does those who claim that it is not hardware damage (since you can
solder the chip out of the mother board, reprogram it and solder it
back in) also claim that a broken glass is not really damaged since
you can glue it together.
There is a great difference between using a computer and using a
solder. Would you claim that a loos wire is not hardware damage
because you can solder it? Any damage that cannot be fixed using only
software (formatting a floppy disk usually counts as a software
action) is a hardware damage.
Yes I know, you can change the CMOS passward setting such that you
can't boot your computer unless you remove the battery to reset the
setting. Would like to ask if I consider this a hardware damage? Well
since I like simple defenitions - Yes, very slight damage if you can
simply pull the battery out. No so slight if it is less easy to remove
it.
Many of you are probably uneasy with this, for those I would offer a
change in my defenition, such that a hardware damage is a damage that
cannot be fixed using only software and normal user maintenece
operations.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
jhb
In article <831969...@mist.demon.co.uk>, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk> says:
>"Aliens are controlling
>the Government with Green Rays. Prove me wrong."
You are wrong its "Blue rays" everone know this!
Moshe Litvin
On 13 May 1996 20:41:54 GMT, rsl...@vcn.bc.ca (Robert Michael Slade)
wrote:
>Moshe Litvin (lit...@math.huji.ac.il) wrote:
>: The hardware was not destroyed. But when you have to use hardware
>: measures to fix it - it is a hardware damage. The difference between
>
>So are you saying that deleting a file, which requires hardware (a
>computer and a disk drive) to fix the problem, is hardware damage?
I think the line between software action and hardware is about what
you can command the computer to do using software (and the keyboard).
When you go down to it anything is hardware. But soldering out a chip
is completely different than replacing a floppy disk.
>: hardware damage and software damage is in the way of fixing. The
>: internal causes are only of a theoretical importance. If you have to
>: solder chips - it is hardware damage. John Doe doesn't care what
>: exactly happened to the chip. He wants to know if he can fix it with
>: his favorite AV software - or if he needs to take the computer to
>: technichian to replace parts.
>
>Well then, is infection by an overwriting virus--which no AV software can
>"fix"--hardware damage?
He cannot fix the whole damage using any AV software, but he usually
can bring his computer to functioning state. Can't you see the
difference? is it to painful to admit that software can do hardware
damage?
Regards
Moshe Litvin
George Wenzel
In article <3198c14...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>I maintain that the fact that you have to solder out a chip, means
>that it was hardware damage. Software damage can be fixed by software.
>Hardware damage must be fixed by hardware.
That logic doesn't jibe. Software damage cannot be fixed without hardware.
If you don't have hardware to rewrite the software with, how can you fix it?
The point is, an average PC doesn't have the appropriate hardware or software
to performa a factory rewrite on a Flash ROM chip.
>>Are you maintaining that a clock becomes damaged when its battery
>>wears down?
>
>Yes. The clock was once functioning, and is now not functioning. There
>was some change in the state of the clock. Changes that cause
>something to stop functioning are called damage.
No, the clock is still functional, but is not powered. Are you saying that if
I unplug my computer, it's damaged, since it's not functional?
>>Oh, no. I have perfectly functioning computers which it is not
>>even economic for me to turn on. Under your new criteria, a
>>computer becomes damaged by not having enough memory expansion
>>slots, having an old processor, having small capacity disk
>>drives.
>
>The computer are working, not as well as you would like them to, but
>they are functioning according to their design specification, hence
>they are only outdated and not damaged.
Of course, your clock example is the same sort of thing. The clock isn't
damaged, just not powered. A Flash ROM isn't damaged, the software on the
chip simply cannot be restored to a factory state using the software and
hardware in an average PC. The chip is undamaged; the software that's on the
chip is what is corrupt.
>>That "part" of the discussion is the subject of the thread.
>
>No, that part of the discussion is a meta-discussion about what the
>subject of the thread should be.
No, the subject of the thread is quite explicit: "Can a virus do hardware
damage?" The answer is: "no." If the subject was 'Could a virus...', then
the answer would be 'There is no simple answer.'
>Personally I think that it doesn't
>really matter, since if software can damage hardware then every day we
>could find a virus that does it. The question if one exist among the
>8000 and so viruses is easily answered but I don't think that this is
>the whole question.
The 'whole' question is whether a virus can do hardware damage. The answer is
no. If the question was whether software could damage hardware, the answer
would be more complex.
Regards,
George Wenzel
--
|\ _,,,--,,_ ,) George Wenzel <gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
/,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' Student of Wado Kai Karate
|,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ University of Alberta Karate Club
<---''(_/--' (_/-' http://www.ualberta.ca/~gwenzel/
George Wenzel
In article <319903b...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>If I have to say something on topic: do those who insist that
>>reprogramming a flash BIOS is hardware damage also assert that formatting
>>a floppy (or even deleting a file) is hardware damage since you have to
>>use hardware (a computer) to fix it?
>
>Does those who claim that it is not hardware damage (since you can
>solder the chip out of the mother board, reprogram it and solder it
>back in) also claim that a broken glass is not really damaged since
>you can glue it together.
There's a difference there, of course. A reprogrammed Flash ROM chip can have
its software returned to a factory state without altering the hardware. A
broken piece of glass cannot be returned to the original state with relative
ease, and extra hardware (glue) must be added to return it to a state similar
to the original state.
>
>There is a great difference between using a computer and using a
>solder. Would you claim that a loos wire is not hardware damage
>because you can solder it? Any damage that cannot be fixed using only
>software (formatting a floppy disk usually counts as a software
>action) is a hardware damage.
Formatting a disk is a hardware action, run by software. Try formatting a
floppy disk without a floppy disk drive, and you'll see that hardware is
necessary to do this. Format.com isn't the only thing necessary to format a
disk.
>
>Yes I know, you can change the CMOS passward setting such that you
>can't boot your computer unless you remove the battery to reset the
>setting. Would like to ask if I consider this a hardware damage? Well
>since I like simple defenitions - Yes, very slight damage if you can
>simply pull the battery out. No so slight if it is less easy to remove
>it.
The amount of damage incurred cannot easily be measured by the difficulty of
repair, since other factors are involved. Reprogramming a Flash ROM would be
easy if you had the right equipment on your PC. It's only difficult because
you do not. Resetting the CMOS by removing the battery isn't damage, since
the hardware isn't altered one bit.
How is it possible that hardware could be damaged if it is not altered?
>
>Many of you are probably uneasy with this, for those I would offer a
>change in my defenition, such that a hardware damage is a damage that
>cannot be fixed using only software and normal user maintenece
>operations.
There is absolutely no damage to a computer that can be fixed using only
software. Hardware is always a necessary component; the two are inseparable.
Software cannot exist without hardware to house it.
Dr Alan Solomon
Huh! Prove it isn't green rays!
Jeffry Johnston
Hello
Here's how to cause HARDWARE DAMAGE on any computer equipped with a disk
drive :-). It is very simple, but of course very stupid. Basically,
kinda like an audio tape, the magnetic coating on a floppy
disk can be eventually damaged by repetitive read/write operations, if
wrote and read long enough it will damage the floppy :-). Now don't get
confused and call
that software damage although it might ruin a program. I'm talking
about actually having the magnetic coating that makes the floppy work
harmed. Of course this would take forever and anyone would know it. But
if coded in a virus speading format, it could be considered a hardware
damaging virus :-).
yay :-)
Jeffry Johnston
jef...@azstarnet.com
Moshe Litvin
On Mon, 13 May 96 06:40:58 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <31961dc5...@news.huji.ac.il>
> lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>
>> On Thu, 09 May 96 17:04:40 GMT, Iolo Davidson <io...@mist.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <31911aa4...@news.huji.ac.il>
>> > lit...@math.huji.ac.il "Moshe Litvin" writes:
>> >
>> >> The warning is not proof that monitors can be damaged. But
>> >> saying than no current monitor can be damaged without proof
>> >> is irresponsible.
>> >
>> >Other way round. Claiming that viruses can damage hardware
>> >without proof is irresponsible scaremongering.
>>
>> State your opinion, but don't pretend you have facts. You don't
>> and can't have facts about every current monitor, therefore you
>> can't have facts to support your thesis.
>
>The fact is that there is no virus that does what you suggest.
>
>Proposing the existence of someting and claiming it is true
>unless others can disprove it is a logical fallacy. "There's a
>B-29 on the back of the Moon. You can't prove it isn't so."
>> Stating such is such affirmative tone is misleading. All you have
>> is your believes, so please mention that in your statements so
>> people can decide weather or not they are wheeling to accept your
>> beleives. Don't pretend to have facts that you don't have.
>
>The fact is that there is no virus that does what you suggest.
>If there were, you would only have to name it or provide a
>sample to the AV recognised anti-virus researchers in this group
>and your assertion could be tested. No one has been able to do
>that, and that is *the* fact, the only one that matters at all
>in this discussion.
There are two questions:
1. Is there a virus that can do hardware damage?
2. Can such a virus exist? (i.e. be written)
The answer to the first question is simply "No, no such virus is known
to exist". It doesn't say anything about question 2.
Affirmative answer to question no. 1 would give the answer to question
no. 2. But a negative answer to question no.1 doesn't prove anything
about question no. 2. You claim that the answer 2 is also no, and for
that I say that you have no proof, nor can you possibly have any
proof. You may have a lot of good reasons to think that the answer is
negative - but you can't have proof.
>
>> As for the possiblility of hardware damage by malware:
>> 1. Current, well designed monitors and HDD shouldn't be vulnerable.
>
>*Isn't* vulnerable. The fact is that no such damage has
>been demonstrated. Your speculations have no factual backup.
What are you arguing about? the difference between shouldn't and
isn't? shouldn't mean that I read all your argument, and I agree. But
I hadn't tested every monitor, and haven't heard about such a test.
Therefore I can't say with 100% certainty "isn't".
>
>> 2. Equipment with flash ROM can be damaged. Some would claim that
>> it is not hardware damage, but no AV software will be able to
>> rescue you -- you would have to replace hardware. Make sure that
>> you have write protect switch.
>
>No, reprogramming a reprogrammable chip does not damage it. AV
>software has never claimed to be able to undo data corruption
>caused by viruses. It only detects and removes the viruses
>themselves, and it is not able to restore programs corrupted by
>overwriting viruses, either.
Yes, but AV programs claim to be able to return the computer to a
working state. That is the difference.
>When your hard disk gets wiped or your data has small unnoticed
>changes made to it over a long period, you may have to go to
>extraordinary lengths to recover the data, and may in the latter
>case not be able to do so at all. That is at least as much
>trouble as caused by your speculative corrupting of a Flash
>BIOS,
Since hardware is usually relatively chip and data is often priceless
data corruption viruses are bigger threat, but that is not the
question.
>but no amount of difficulty in recovery qualifies such
>corruption as hardware damage.
Not the amount of difficulty but the very nature of the operation make
it a hardware damage. Your example is software damage because to
return the computer/system to a working order you needed software and
human measures. In the flash bios situation you needed to solder a
chip. That is the difference.
>> 3. Other ways to attack hardware may be found, Iolo and others
>> doesn't know anything about them,
>
>Put up or shut up. There is no virus that does such damage.
I know that there no such virus known today. My problem is with
unknown viruses (written but never released) and unwritten viruses. I
claim that there is no proof that those can't do hardware damage (and
I think that I have proof that they can be written - but we are
debating weather it is hardware damage or not)
>
>> and therefore can easily say that it will not work -- but it is
>> ignorant talking. not knoledge (their knoledge is in viruses and
>> AV -- not hardware which is the real issue here).
>
>As it happens I have designed and built hardware, both computer
>and analogue, and Dr. Solomon even has at least one computer
>hardware patent, but that is beside the point.
>
>You have to support your own propositions in debate, or they fail
>by default. You don't get to propose them and claim they are
>valid unless someone can disprove them. "Aliens are controlling
>the Government with Green Rays. Prove me wrong."
How about reversing the argument. You claim that no virus that can
damage hardware can exist. How about supporting that claim?
I have proofs that a software can be written, such that on some (even
many) current computers will after a short time bring them to a state
that hardware must be replaced (*). If you don't think that it is
hardware damage then indeed I have no proofs. All I want is that you
admit that you have no proofs either.
Regards
Moshe Litvin
(*) A software that reprogram a flash rom enough times to wear it out.
George Wenzel
In article <319a18b6...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>There are two questions:
>1. Is there a virus that can do hardware damage?
>2. Can such a virus exist? (i.e. be written)
I tend to look at it using assertions, not questions. The question that you
number as #1 is pretty much what's listed in the subject line. #2 is
something that you brought about yourself.
You are asserting that a hardware-damaging virus could exist.
Iolo hears your assertion, and says asserts that what you assert is not true.
You are then responsible, if you wish to back up your assertion, to prove it.
It's not Iolo's responsibility to prove himself right, since he cannot prove
something that could happen in the future. It is your responsibility, since
you made the original assertion, to prove your claim. If you believe a virus
could cause hardware damage, then show us how it would be done (in private
e-mail, of course).
>
>The answer to the first question is simply "No, no such virus is known
>to exist". It doesn't say anything about question 2.
>
>Affirmative answer to question no. 1 would give the answer to question
>no. 2. But a negative answer to question no.1 doesn't prove anything
>about question no. 2. You claim that the answer 2 is also no, and for
>that I say that you have no proof, nor can you possibly have any
>proof. You may have a lot of good reasons to think that the answer is
>negative - but you can't have proof.
That's obvious, since nobody can tell what will happen 200 years from now. If
one is questioning current hardware, which makes more sense, then it's a
debatable topic.
>>> As for the possiblility of hardware damage by malware:
>>> 1. Current, well designed monitors and HDD shouldn't be vulnerable.
>>
>>*Isn't* vulnerable. The fact is that no such damage has
>>been demonstrated. Your speculations have no factual backup.
>
>What are you arguing about? the difference between shouldn't and
>isn't? shouldn't mean that I read all your argument, and I agree. But
>I hadn't tested every monitor, and haven't heard about such a test.
>Therefore I can't say with 100% certainty "isn't".
He's telling you that your speculations have no facts to back them up. You
said that current monitors and HDD shouldn't be vulnerable. His point was
that they aren't vulnerable.
>>> 2. Equipment with flash ROM can be damaged. Some would claim that
>>> it is not hardware damage, but no AV software will be able to
>>> rescue you -- you would have to replace hardware. Make sure that
>>> you have write protect switch.
>>
>>No, reprogramming a reprogrammable chip does not damage it. AV
>>software has never claimed to be able to undo data corruption
>>caused by viruses. It only detects and removes the viruses
>>themselves, and it is not able to restore programs corrupted by
>>overwriting viruses, either.
>
>Yes, but AV programs claim to be able to return the computer to a
>working state. That is the difference.
No, that's not the difference. AV products do not claim to return the
computer to a working state in all cases. What about overwriting viruses?
How about data diddlers? AV products cannot always fix these problems, nor do
they claim to.
>>When your hard disk gets wiped or your data has small unnoticed
>>changes made to it over a long period, you may have to go to
>>extraordinary lengths to recover the data, and may in the latter
>>case not be able to do so at all. That is at least as much
>>trouble as caused by your speculative corrupting of a Flash
>>BIOS,
>
>Since hardware is usually relatively chip and data is often priceless
>data corruption viruses are bigger threat, but that is not the
>question.
>
>>but no amount of difficulty in recovery qualifies such
>>corruption as hardware damage.
>
>Not the amount of difficulty but the very nature of the operation make
>it a hardware damage. Your example is software damage because to
>return the computer/system to a working order you needed software and
>human measures. In the flash bios situation you needed to solder a
>chip. That is the difference.
No, I disagree. The measures required to repair something do not label what
kind of damage was done. You can't say 'I need hardware to fix this, so it
must be hardware damage'. That is analagous to a mechanic saying 'I need a
wrench to fix this, so this is wrench damage'.
>>> 3. Other ways to attack hardware may be found, Iolo and others
>>> doesn't know anything about them,
>>
>>Put up or shut up. There is no virus that does such damage.
>
>I know that there no such virus known today. My problem is with
>unknown viruses (written but never released) and unwritten viruses. I
>claim that there is no proof that those can't do hardware damage (and
>I think that I have proof that they can be written - but we are
>debating weather it is hardware damage or not)
If you have proof that they can be written, then lay it out on the table (in
private e-mail, of course).
>>As it happens I have designed and built hardware, both computer
>>and analogue, and Dr. Solomon even has at least one computer
>>hardware patent, but that is beside the point.
>>
>>You have to support your own propositions in debate, or they fail
>>by default. You don't get to propose them and claim they are
>>valid unless someone can disprove them. "Aliens are controlling
>>the Government with Green Rays. Prove me wrong."
>
>How about reversing the argument. You claim that no virus that can
>damage hardware can exist. How about supporting that claim?
I don't think so. Iolo said that your claim was false. It's your
responsibility to prove your claim. His claim wasn't a claim at all; it was
just saying that your claim was false.
>
>I have proofs that a software can be written, such that on some (even
>many) current computers will after a short time bring them to a state
>that hardware must be replaced (*). If you don't think that it is
>hardware damage then indeed I have no proofs. All I want is that you
>admit that you have no proofs either.
>(*) A software that reprogram a flash rom enough times to wear it out.
The question of course, is whether that constitutes hardware damage. I
believe that it does not, since the hardware is not changed.
George Wenzel
In article <4ndha5$5...@news.azstarnet.com>, jef...@azstarnet.com (Jeffry Johnston) wrote:
>Here's how to cause HARDWARE DAMAGE on any computer equipped with a disk
>drive :-). It is very simple, but of course very stupid. Basically,
>kinda like an audio tape, the magnetic coating on a floppy
>disk can be eventually damaged by repetitive read/write operations, if
>wrote and read long enough it will damage the floppy :-).
Sorry, but that wouldn't work. Like a hard disk, the floppy isn't actually
touched by the head when being read/written to. Disks, like audio tape, get
old from age and the like. Audio tape gets old faster, since when
read/written to, it does actually touch the heads.
>Now don't get
>confused and call
>that software damage although it might ruin a program. I'm talking
>about actually having the magnetic coating that makes the floppy work
>harmed. Of course this would take forever and anyone would know it. But
>if coded in a virus speading format, it could be considered a hardware
>damaging virus :-).
No more than a virus that writes to the hard drive does. Repetitive
read/writes are nothing more than daily wear and tear for a floppy disk and a
floppy disk drive. That hardware is designed to do exactly that every day,
and such a virus wouldn't do anything but shorten the lifetime a bit.
Eric Linenberg
How come I read about virus' burning out older computer screens, and
damaging older stuff-- Is THIS true?
Norman Hirsch
On Mon, 13 May 1996 13:56:09 -0700, dh...@POMONA.EDU (David B. Hull)
wrote:
>Well,
>As I have said many times, the analogy between computer viruses
>and mammalian viruses is quite exact.
>Every floppy that goes in that disk drive has been with every
>other floppy in that drive.
>Where, pray tell, have you been putting your floppy; and
>why are you infecting all the other floppies ?
The analogy is not that exact. Otherwise it would not be the
"floppy" that is inserted. It would be the "hard drive"!
George Wenzel
In article <319a54e...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>Well then, is infection by an overwriting virus--which no AV software can
>>"fix"--hardware damage?
>
>He cannot fix the whole damage using any AV software, but he usually
>can bring his computer to functioning state. Can't you see the
>difference? is it to painful to admit that software can do hardware
>damage?
Usually, but definitely not always. That depends on how much damage the virus
has done to the data. Sometimes a restore from a backup is necessary (I
prefer this usually).
You are being a bit condescending when you say, with absolute certainty, that
software can do hardware damage. I say again: How can the hardware be
damaged if the hardware is totally unaltered? Reprogramming a Flash ROM only
changes the software within the chip, but not the chip itself. I've
questioned you about this point before, and to my knowledge you haven't
responded yet.
Robert Michael Slade
George Wenzel (gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: In article <319a18b6...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
: >I have proofs that a software can be written, such that on some (even
: >many) current computers will after a short time bring them to a state
: >that hardware must be replaced (*). If you don't think that it is
: >hardware damage then indeed I have no proofs. All I want is that you
: >admit that you have no proofs either.
: >(*) A software that reprogram a flash rom enough times to wear it out.
: The question of course, is whether that constitutes hardware damage. I
: believe that it does not, since the hardware is not changed.
I'm not absolutely sure, but at this point I might (I *might*) agree with
Moshe. We are getting to the point where the debate resembles that in
respect of whether DISKCOPY is a virus under Fred Cohen's definition:
that is, we need a more precise definition of what constitutes "hardware
damage. I tend to side with Iolo: computers run on smoke and mirrors,
and if you let the smoke out they don't work anymore :-)
So far, I would say:
- things that aren't hardware damage
- reprogramming chips (even BIOS chips) (they can be reprogrammed)
- rewriting/overwriting data on disks (you *do* have a backup,
don't you? :-)
- reformatting drives (even IDE)
- rewriting disks until the coercivity rises (even if I grant this
can happen, degaussing the disk should fix it)
- things that *are* hardware damage
- burning phosphors (you can live with a spot, of course, but
if you want to fix it, you have to replace the monitor/CRT)
- driving a print head into the platen
- rewriting flash/EEPROMs until they won't rewrite (yes, I
understand the argument about the lifetime, but early
monitors had a "lifetime" too, and now it is much longer)
Of those things that are (or might be) hardware damage, note that all
require a specific piece (or type) of hardware which is not, currently,
the norm. (Hopefully, flash EPROM BIOS never will become the norm: at
least not until there is some answer to the current problems.) Thus the
"target population" for a virus is relatively small. (Yes, Moshe, there
may be "many", but not in comparison to "computers as a whole".) This
means that such systems are not good candidates for viral attack, since
the "target" population is too small to support the parasite. (Yes, such
viruses *coulld* spread via non-target computers, but the actions are
likely to be detected before they can reach a target computer.)
Therefore, in answer to the variant questions:
1) Can a virus damage hardware? No.
2) Could software damage hardware? Yes, but rarely.
3) Could a virus damage hardware? Not bloody likely.
: --
: |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) George Wenzel <gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
: /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' Student of Wado Kai Karate
: |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ University of Alberta Karate Club
: <---''(_/--' (_/-' http://www.ualberta.ca/~gwenzel/
George! What happened to Lucky! :-)
======================
rob...@decus.ca rsl...@vcn.bc.ca rsl...@vanisl.decus.ca
"News is what somebody, somewhere wants to suppress.
All the rest is advertising." - Lord Northcliffe
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
Jon Williams
In article <4nddl3$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
George Wenzel <gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>In article <319903b...@news.huji.ac.il>, lit...@math.huji.ac.il (Moshe Litvin) wrote:
>>>If I have to say something on topic: do those who insist that
>>>reprogramming a flash BIOS is hardware damage also assert that formatting
>>>a floppy (or even deleting a file) is hardware damage since you have to
>>>use hardware (a computer) to fix it?
>>
>>Does those who claim that it is not hardware damage (since you can
>>solder the chip out of the mother board, reprogram it and solder it
>>back in) also claim that a broken glass is not really damaged since
>>you can glue it together.
>
>There's a difference there, of course. A reprogrammed Flash ROM chip can have
>its software returned to a factory state without altering the hardware. A
>broken piece of glass cannot be returned to the original state with relative
>ease, and extra hardware (glue) must be added to return it to a state similar
>to the original state.
Define altering hardware, George. A minor point, but one I see as
valid: "hardware" doesn't just mean the chips and components
individually; it usually refers to a computer system on a physical
level. Desoldering a chip is definately altering hardware. Not that
I necessarily agree with Moshe; in my view the method of repair
is a side effect of whether what is done to hardware meets my definition
of damage (defined by Webster's as "loss or harm", and as applied to
this discussion best defined by "semi-permanent physical change,
significantly above and beyond that caused by normal use, which results
in loss of functionality, also at the physical level").
BTW, I wouldn't refer to soldering solutions involving surface-mount
components as relatively easy.
<snip>
>>Many of you are probably uneasy with this, for those I would offer a
>>change in my defenition, such that a hardware damage is a damage that
>>cannot be fixed using only software and normal user maintenece
>>operations.
>
>There is absolutely no damage to a computer that can be fixed using only
>software. Hardware is always a necessary component; the two are inseparable.
>Software cannot exist without hardware to house it.
Which brings me to an interesting point: does anyone else think the
distinction between hardware and software, with regards to damage, is
ultimately an artificial one? What we're really talking about is
what kind of damage a virus can do. While it is in all likelihood true
that many virus attacks can be repaired by means of software, many times
(after a low-level format of a harddrive which has not been backed up),
it cannot. In some, perhaps many cases, this results in more monetary
loss than would a harddrive destroyed by a mythical virus capable of
doing such.
In other words, destruction is destruction, and I for one think time
could be better spent discussing virus solutions than arguing over
imaginary boundaries between different forms of virus damage.
There!
Jonathan
--
==============================================================================
A firm believer that, following | kythe (Jonathan Williams)
"Generation-X," we have | jonv...@iastate.edu
"GENERATION-WHY?" | Electrical Engineering
==============================================================================