This comment sums to nil. "Bad Guys," in case no one's noticed, are already doing "nefarious things." What's more, they're doing it with crap code that breaks things, which is the only way the mainstream media picks up on the fact that something's amiss.

The argument that this is a bad idea because good, peer-reviewed, tested and stable code would become available to do what's already being done is laughable.

This "your code" idea of "my hands are clean, see!" is the worst form of wishful self-delusion. Would you suggest that you are somehow responsible for every piece of spam that hits every desktop in your building.. because it travelled over "your" cat6?

Mmmmaybe it has more to do with responsible actions vs. irresponsible actions.

Unfortunately, due to shell shock, I don't think anyone's in a state to objectively analyze the idea of semi-autonomous travelling code.

To draw a sloppy analogy, think of the 'oil-eating bacteria.' On paper it looks like it has the perfect control; it propagates when there's a target, and dies off when the problem is solved.

Does that mean it's foolproof? Heck no. Is it free of ethical concerns? *Heck* no. But should we pretend no one had this idea and run screaming from it before we give it an honest, rigorous look? Heck no.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11373/33112#33112