4 ms·

Moreover, everything has evolved to the point where we can't live without some "parasites" - see gut bacteria. Perhaps some sort of a similar homeostasis will

Moreover, everything has evolved to the point where we can't live without some "parasites" - see gut bacteria. Perhaps some sort of a similar homeostasis will also be reached by software.

kbenson 13y ago
Sure, I can see a few ways of this happening: 1) A virus provides some additional benefit. For example, if a virus' first stage acts as a sort of installer and pulls in some additional libraries for use, at some point of public infection rate there's a pretty good chance those libraries are available to anyone targeting programming for those systems. This becomes more feasible if AV cleaned the infectious and malicious portion while leaving libraries. Imagine, every system has libpcap one it... 2) Viruses start opening previously locked down portions of the OS to achieve their goals, and developers start taking advantage of these opening to extract more value for what they provide (in fact, being somewhat malicious themselves). This is already the case to some small degree with browser exploits. Keygen utilities that install malware seem to fit this somewhat. This all presupposes a much more computer integrated and yet less computer aware society, which is where I think we are heading. More and more items have integrated computers and operating systems, yet we are much less aware of when this is the case (of course certain groups, such HN regulars, are more likely to be a aware of these items). Edit: Here's a sample scenario for you: You turn on your new computer and attempt to use it to watch videos on your favorite site, but it doesn't work. You try again tomorrow and it does. What happened is that between then and now, a virus has infected your system and installed a hacked divx codec and made some changes in your browser to redirect you to some specific sites often. The author gets information about your system far beyond what is normally allowed, and you get access to videos as you normally did (possibly illegally).
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  Something that happens already is that virusses will patch security wholes and install updates so that no other virusses can use the machine.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  I find it very unlikely that developers would start to rely on maliciously installed libraries. That means all the developers and tester machines need to be infected, and that none of them do testing on clean installs. Additionally, for point 2, locked down OSes usually have a locked down app store. This means those app store tester machines would also need to be compromised, as well as the app store testing suite. Otherwise the testing suite would notice a dependency on not-allowed functionality.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I think your interpretation of "developer" is stricter than mine. I meant anyone that writes a program (the "developer" of that program), not developer in the sense of a profession, which generally implies a bit more rigor (hopefully). That said, yes, it's unlikely. I wasn't making any assertions as to how those scenarios will come about, just ways in which I think they could, given the right conditions. As for OS lockdown, while I can see why you went towards that interpretation, and on re-reading it does make sense, I was actually thinking of something much more general (so OS is a bit of a red herring). Any hole that allows root/administrator access (so any multi-user secured OS), or even something that loosens security in the browser to make more, probably less safe, access available to web pages.
- meowface 13y ago
  It seems illogical to discuss possible benefits of real malware. I work as a malware and enterprise security analyst, and I can certainly see no current or future benefits to malware. I think the "cons" of them harvesting your email, banking, and social networking credentials, abusing your system resources to spam and DoS, and siphoning important information from your hard drive to a remote server certainly outweigh any incidental benefits that may occur.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    Of course. I made no argument towards it being beneficial, just scenarios in which we could possibly come to a homeostatic situation with malware, and as I note it assumes a fairly different software ecology than today. Imagine a world more in the vein of classic Neal Stephenson or Charles Stross as a prerequisite, if that helps. Edit: s/Stephens/Stephenson/, + classic
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - brokenparser 13y ago
    There's also maliciousness to the benefit of the user. Read (s)elf-exploitation by Jonathan Garrett for an example, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/194772/ http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/194772/
cantrevealname 13y ago
> we can't live without some "parasites" - see gut bacteria You made me curious to know if we would literally die without gut bacteria. The answer is no: "humans can live without gut flora"[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165247805000052 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165247805... (Note: no criticism is intended. I understand the larger point you're making.)
- Nick_C 13y ago
  That article is behind a paywall for me.
jimworm 13y ago
Mitochondria maybe.

Moreover, everything has evolved to the point where we can't live without some "parasites" - see gut bacteria. Perhaps some sort of a similar homeostasis will also be reached by software.

kbenson 13y ago

Sure, I can see a few ways of this happening: 1) A virus provides some additional benefit. For example, if a virus' first stage acts as a sort of installer and pulls in some additional libraries for use, at some point of public infection rate there's a pretty good chance those libraries are available to anyone targeting programming for those systems. This becomes more feasible if AV cleaned the infectious and malicious portion while leaving libraries. Imagine, every system has libpcap one it... 2) Viruses start opening previously locked down portions of the OS to achieve their goals, and developers start taking advantage of these opening to extract more value for what they provide (in fact, being somewhat malicious themselves). This is already the case to some small degree with browser exploits. Keygen utilities that install malware seem to fit this somewhat. This all presupposes a much more computer integrated and yet less computer aware society, which is where I think we are heading. More and more items have integrated computers and operating systems, yet we are much less aware of when this is the case (of course certain groups, such HN regulars, are more likely to be a aware of these items). Edit: Here's a sample scenario for you: You turn on your new computer and attempt to use it to watch videos on your favorite site, but it doesn't work. You try again tomorrow and it does. What happened is that between then and now, a virus has infected your system and installed a hacked divx codec and made some changes in your browser to redirect you to some specific sites often. The author gets information about your system far beyond what is normally allowed, and you get access to videos as you normally did (possibly illegally).

Ihmahr 13y ago
Something that happens already is that virusses will patch security wholes and install updates so that no other virusses can use the machine.
MichaelGG 13y ago
I find it very unlikely that developers would start to rely on maliciously installed libraries. That means all the developers and tester machines need to be infected, and that none of them do testing on clean installs. Additionally, for point 2, locked down OSes usually have a locked down app store. This means those app store tester machines would also need to be compromised, as well as the app store testing suite. Otherwise the testing suite would notice a dependency on not-allowed functionality.
- kbenson 13y ago
  I think your interpretation of "developer" is stricter than mine. I meant anyone that writes a program (the "developer" of that program), not developer in the sense of a profession, which generally implies a bit more rigor (hopefully). That said, yes, it's unlikely. I wasn't making any assertions as to how those scenarios will come about, just ways in which I think they could, given the right conditions. As for OS lockdown, while I can see why you went towards that interpretation, and on re-reading it does make sense, I was actually thinking of something much more general (so OS is a bit of a red herring). Any hole that allows root/administrator access (so any multi-user secured OS), or even something that loosens security in the browser to make more, probably less safe, access available to web pages.
meowface 13y ago
It seems illogical to discuss possible benefits of real malware. I work as a malware and enterprise security analyst, and I can certainly see no current or future benefits to malware. I think the "cons" of them harvesting your email, banking, and social networking credentials, abusing your system resources to spam and DoS, and siphoning important information from your hard drive to a remote server certainly outweigh any incidental benefits that may occur.
- kbenson 13y ago
  Of course. I made no argument towards it being beneficial, just scenarios in which we could possibly come to a homeostatic situation with malware, and as I note it assumes a fairly different software ecology than today. Imagine a world more in the vein of classic Neal Stephenson or Charles Stross as a prerequisite, if that helps. Edit: s/Stephens/Stephenson/, + classic
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- brokenparser 13y ago
  There's also maliciousness to the benefit of the user. Read (s)elf-exploitation by Jonathan Garrett for an example, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/194772/ http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/194772/

cantrevealname 13y ago

> we can't live without some "parasites" - see gut bacteria You made me curious to know if we would literally die without gut bacteria. The answer is no: "humans can live without gut flora"[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165247805000052 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165247805... (Note: no criticism is intended. I understand the larger point you're making.)

Nick_C 13y ago
That article is behind a paywall for me.

jimworm 13y ago

Mitochondria maybe.