During the past six years, computer viruses have caused
unaccountable amount of damage - mostly due to loss of time
and resources. For most users, the term "computer virus" is
a synonym of the worst nightmares that can happen on their
system. Yet some well-known researchers keep insisting that
it is possible to use the replication mechanism of the viral
programs for some useful and beneficial purposes.
This paper is an attempt to summarize why exactly the general
public appreciates computer viruses as something inherently
bad. It is also considering several of the proposed models
of "beneficial" viruses and points out the problems in them.
A set of conditions is listed, which every virus that claims
to be beneficial must conform to. At last, a realistic model
using replication techniques for beneficial purposes is
proposed and directions are given in which this technique can
be improved further.
The paper also demonstrates that the main reason for the
conflict between those supporting the idea of a "beneficial
virus" and those opposing it, is that the two sides are
assuming a different definition of what a computer virus is.
The important thing to note is that a computer virus is a program that
is able to replicate by itself. The definition does not specify
explicitly that it is a malicious program. Also, a program that does
not replicate is not a virus, regardless of whether it is malicious or
not. Therefore the maliciousness is neither a necessary, nor a
sufficient property for a program to be a computer virus.
Nevertheless, in the past ten years a huge number of intentionally or
non intentionally destructive computer viruses have caused an
unaccountable amount of damage - mostly due to loss of time, money,
and resources to eradicate them - because in all cases they have been
unwanted. Some damage has also been caused by a direct loss of
valuable information due to an intentionally destructive payload of
some viruses, but this loss is relatively minor when compared to the
main one. Lastly, a third, indirect kind of damage is caused to the
society - many users are forced to spend money on buying and time on
installing and using several kinds of anti-virus protection.
Does all this mean that computer viruses can be only harmful?
Intuitively, computer viruses are just a kind of technology. As with
any other kind of technology, they are ethically neutral - they are
neither "bad" nor "good" - it is the purposes that people use them
for that can be "bad" or "good". So far they have been used mostly
for bad purposes. It is therefore natural to ask the question whether
it is possible to use this kind of technology for good purposes.
Indeed, several people have asked this question - with Dr. Cohen being
one of the most active proponents of the idea [Cohen91]. Some less
qualified people have attempted even to implement the idea, but have
failed miserably (see section 3). It is natural to ask - why? Let's
consider the reasons why the idea of a "good" virus is usually
rejected by the general public. In order to do this, we shall consider
why people think that a computer virus is always harmful and cannot be
used for beneficial purposes.
