3 ms·

I'm surprised that anyone would think that rejecting widely accepted nomenclature is even a valid rhetorical option. I can understand why the sight of a lovely

by pohl 17y ago

I'm surprised that anyone would think that rejecting widely accepted nomenclature is even a valid rhetorical option. I can understand why the sight of a lovely lady is going to make you want to convince her that your herpes is no worse than a goiter, but I don't think that telling her that the doctor's taxonomy of maladies is superfluous is going to make her sleep with you.

tptacek 17y ago
The idea that you would compare actual professional medical terminology to stuff that AV company employees made up is why I'm not having this argument. For the third time: you win. Now, what does this have to do with OS X security?
- pohl 17y ago
  I'm not sure what it means for you to "not have this argument" while you continue to argue. I get that you're exasperated, but take a deep breath: this is just a conversation. For the record, 'virus' was first used by Fred Cohen in his 1988 PhD thesis. The word "worm" was used as early as the early 80s at Xerox PARC, when they were researching the possibility that they might be beneficial to networks. Those were the only two that I bothered to track down, but it's clear that the taxonomy of malware predates the modern anti-malware industry, so you can't rationalize dismissing the nomenclature that way. I think throw_away's post adequately answers what it has to do with the security question, with an excellent example of stabbing yourself with a found needle versus the mere act of breathing.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Fred Cohen is part of the whole "Virus Bulletin" dead ender scene; see Pete Szor's book for a more modern example of the same CS backwater. My problem with malware "research" isn't the patent medicine industry it's spawned, but rather the very poor CS work done in it. Look at the last 5 years of vulnerability research and where it's taken distributed systems research, compiler-theoretic research, and just basic systems research; compare to "virologists". I'm arguing that no matter what you opinion about what the difference between a "virus" and a "worm" is, this whole tangent has nothing to do with OS X. I'm happy to converse about either the shallowness of Fred Cohen-brand virus research or about OS X security, but what you're seeing is me trying to tack us back to OS X.
    - pohl 17y ago
      The headline is about a mechanism in OS X, and that's the only connection you need. It makes an incorrect leap from the general to the specific. That, and my curiosity about the mechanism, is what moved me to ask my original question. I'm a "tools man", and I think that tools should be judged by their merits. Words are tools we use to communicate. Names are tools we use to identify. Taxonomies are tools we use to classify. How classification ties into understanding and addressing problems should be self-evident. I don't care if the progenitor of a term is from the wrong "scene". If he ran over your dog, seduced your wife, and stole your grant money, I feel for you - but even if his crowning achievement is just one lowly but useful addition to the lexicon, then kudos for him. No amount of argumentum ad hominem on your part is going to divorce that tool from its intrinsic utility. Yes, fluffy social & political stuff has its value too, I just didn't expect it rear its head here at HN. Now that I realize what's going on, I'll duck out. It was fun.

by pohl 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

The idea that you would compare actual professional medical terminology to stuff that AV company employees made up is why I'm not having this argument. For the third time: you win. Now, what does this have to do with OS X security?

pohl 17y ago
I'm not sure what it means for you to "not have this argument" while you continue to argue. I get that you're exasperated, but take a deep breath: this is just a conversation. For the record, 'virus' was first used by Fred Cohen in his 1988 PhD thesis. The word "worm" was used as early as the early 80s at Xerox PARC, when they were researching the possibility that they might be beneficial to networks. Those were the only two that I bothered to track down, but it's clear that the taxonomy of malware predates the modern anti-malware industry, so you can't rationalize dismissing the nomenclature that way. I think throw_away's post adequately answers what it has to do with the security question, with an excellent example of stabbing yourself with a found needle versus the mere act of breathing.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Fred Cohen is part of the whole "Virus Bulletin" dead ender scene; see Pete Szor's book for a more modern example of the same CS backwater. My problem with malware "research" isn't the patent medicine industry it's spawned, but rather the very poor CS work done in it. Look at the last 5 years of vulnerability research and where it's taken distributed systems research, compiler-theoretic research, and just basic systems research; compare to "virologists". I'm arguing that no matter what you opinion about what the difference between a "virus" and a "worm" is, this whole tangent has nothing to do with OS X. I'm happy to converse about either the shallowness of Fred Cohen-brand virus research or about OS X security, but what you're seeing is me trying to tack us back to OS X.
  - pohl 17y ago
    The headline is about a mechanism in OS X, and that's the only connection you need. It makes an incorrect leap from the general to the specific. That, and my curiosity about the mechanism, is what moved me to ask my original question. I'm a "tools man", and I think that tools should be judged by their merits. Words are tools we use to communicate. Names are tools we use to identify. Taxonomies are tools we use to classify. How classification ties into understanding and addressing problems should be self-evident. I don't care if the progenitor of a term is from the wrong "scene". If he ran over your dog, seduced your wife, and stole your grant money, I feel for you - but even if his crowning achievement is just one lowly but useful addition to the lexicon, then kudos for him. No amount of argumentum ad hominem on your part is going to divorce that tool from its intrinsic utility. Yes, fluffy social & political stuff has its value too, I just didn't expect it rear its head here at HN. Now that I realize what's going on, I'll duck out. It was fun.