Re^2: Simple perl virus

I haven't checked the code in the OP carefully, but if it acts as (and only as) OP wrote, would you have such a strong reaction were it entitled with something like "Modifying scripts en masse?"

Sorry, --, for what seems (obviously, you mileage varies, and you're entitled to that opinion) an excess of outrage.

Comment on Re^2: Simple perl virus

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Simple perl virus by stvn (Monsignor) on Apr 09, 2008 at 22:08 UTC
... would you have such a strong reaction were it entitled with something like "Modifying scripts en masse?" No I would not, but that is not what it is entitled, and the OP specifically says The code is obfuscated to make it harder to recognize But yeah MMMV, but I see no reason to encourage stuff like this to be posted here. If the OP wants to change his post title to something a little more appropriate then I would be much less "outraged" (although truth be told, I was only really "annoyed", the "outrage" is just the "internet amplifier" working to my disadvantage). -stvn	[reply]
Re^4: Simple perl virus by cyb3rdemon (Initiate) on Apr 10, 2008 at 00:29 UTC
Added PoC to the title to show that this is just a proof of concept. Happy now? The virus in its current form would be terribly impractical anyway. One does not have to be a cracker or script kiddie to be interested in viruses. A cracker would have added a destructive payload to the virus, and a script kiddie wouldn't write a virus at all, but use someone else's.	[reply]
Re^5: Simple perl virus by bart (Canon) on Apr 22, 2008 at 16:26 UTC
There's the old adagio "know thy enemy". In my eyes, you don't know how to protect yourself very well against viruses (apart from using other people's virus scanners) if you don't have a clue on how viruses work — well somebody has to write the virus detectors, anyway... And that's what this is: a simple prototype of a simple virus, a proof of concept. And I like it that way.	[reply]