The Computer Virus — from the First IBM-PC Virus Appeared in 1986
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
pp1-20.qxd 11/30/00 11:02 AM Page 13 feature the M-commerce site using encryption highly valuable back-end systems. This, security, none are insurmountable. Co- and certificates, and it is probable that coupled with the fact that handsets are operation among certification authori- people will expect the repository more easily lost or stolen than PCs ties, mobile operators, systems provider to verify the trustworthiness of makes it doubly important that the integrators and device manufacturers is the M-commerce site on their behalf, by handset does not become the weak link needed to ensure that mobile security is checking the validity of certificates, in the PKI. Ideally the handset should implemented properly, and that different before releasing personal data. Fledgling verify the identity of the user using a bio- implementations will be able interact. examples of this kind of online service metric measure, such as a fingerprint Uniform standards need to be estab- are only now arising — such as scan, although this may be some years lished and adhered to. Governments Microsoft Passport — and they are cer- away. In the interim, passwords and PIN and regulators must create legislation, tain to play an increasingly important numbers must be used but are never guidelines and practices that allow role in M-commerce. transmitted across the network in a PKI M-commerce to flourish. based system. Handsets, by their very Security can unlock the potential of The future nature, have the potential to transform M-commerce and M-business. It is an to the Personal Trusted Devices of the enabling rather than restrictive force that While the role of the handset in a PKI future. builds trusted relationships between may be limited to transferring short While M-commerce presents many businesses, their partners and consumers requests, these requests will unlock challenges to those implementing on the move. Elk Cloner, which was reported in 1981. The Computer Virus — From The first IBM-PC virus appeared in 1986. This was the Brain virus, a boot sec- tor virus that remained resident. In 1987, There to Here. Brain was followed by Alameda (Yale), Cascade, Jerusalem, Lehigh, and Miami An Historical Perspective. (South African Friday the 13th). These viruses expanded the target executables to Berni Dwan include COM and EXE files and Cascade I was sitting at my desk in the Computer Centre of University College, Dublin, was encrypted to deter disassembly and checking my E-mail. Suddenly, from the corner of my right eye, I detected an arm detection. Variable encryption appeared swooping down towards my keyboard, like an axe about to fell a tree. This was an in 1989 with the 1260 virus. Stealth arm with a mission. It removed my hand, which was just about to press ‘receive’ on viruses, which employ various techniques an interesting looking E-mail involving a Christmas tree greeting. Of course, my bet- to avoid detection, also first appeared in ter-informed colleague knew that this was the Christma Exec virus, and that I would 1989, such as Zero Bug, Dark Avenger and not be doing myself, or anyone else, any favours by accepting and executing it. It was Frodo (4096 or 4K). In 1990, self-modify- December 1987, and my very first introduction to the computer virus. My love affair ing viruses, such as Whale were intro- with the subject has continued over the past thirteen years (although I do not claim duced. The year 1991 brought the GP1 to have a copy of The Little Black Book of Computer Viruses sitting on my book- virus, which is ‘network-sensitive’ and shelf!), and like myself, the computer virus has evolved into a more complex and attempts to steal Novell NetWare pass- sophisticated entity. words. While some of the most commonly The Christma Exec program spread to While probably the first newsworthy detected viruses vary according to conti- thousands of VM/CMS installations virus, it was by no means the first, and nent, Stoned, Brain, Cascade and members connected to EARN, BITNET and knowledge of the computer virus phe- of the Jerusalem family, have spread wide- IBM’s internal VNET, and would only nomenon had already been in existence ly and continue to appear. In fact, a disk spread if a recipient received and (albeit for several years. scanning ‘fest’ in any large organization unintentionally) executed it. More strictly The term ‘computer virus’ was formally could still encounter at least one of these. a worm than a virus, Christma Exec was a defined by Fred Cohen in 1983, while he This implies, according to Lawrence E. prophetic precursor to Melissa and performed academic experiments on a Bassham & W. Timothy Polk, that highly VBS/LoveLetter, utilizing the increased use Digital Equipment Corporation VAX sys- survivable viruses tend to be benign, repli- of networks and desktop connectivity to tem. The first computer viruses were cate many times before activation, or are the Internet, and sending a copy of itself developed in the early 1980s, the first somewhat innovative — utilizing some to all of the users’ listed correspondents. found in the wild was the Apple II virus, technique never used before in a virus. 13 pp1-20.qxd 11/30/00 11:02 AM Page 14 feature Vagaries of location aside, the virus pay- to mind. We should see new threats with blocking the use of certain commands load also comes in different sizes. David every new development. Unlike the commonly used by malicious code. This Chess likens it to natural phenomena, 1988 Internet Worm victims, we do is a case of fighting the virus writers with “Small earth tremors are much more have a chance to develop methods that their own tools, since scripting languages common than large earthquakes. Slight can handle the majority of pandemic are also used by them to create viruses rises in the level of a river are much more virus outbreaks, even if only to a modest and Trojan Horses that run on a variety common than floods.” So, accepting the extent. There is also a bigger and more of platforms. Lemos quotes one consul- fact that small things happen often and established network of anti-virus experts tant who sees a weakness in the big things happen rarely, our manage- than there was in 1988. Despite the Symantec defence, observing that each ment of the smaller events is consequent- march of time, it is still hard to believe scripting language (e.g. JavaScript, Perl) ly better than our management of the that the main success of Melissa was that will need unique software. When you catastrophes, which, by their very nature it needed human intervention to propa- compare the number of scripting lan- and sometimes their unpredictability, are gate and spread. Just as if the clock had guages with the number of computer probably impossible to fully prepare for been turned back to December 1987, viruses, this argument dies a swift death. anyway. But accepting the infrequent there were still far too many unquestion- As Lemos points out, “keeping up with occurrence of the great unknown, and ing recipients of suspect E-mail. A the changes in scripting services could be with the knowledge that the probability simple user awareness campaign could far easier than keeping track of the more of large computer virus incidents have gone such a long way towards than 50 000 virus variants in the wild increases annually, there are less and less minimizing Melissa. today.” excuses to be caught totally unawares. Bearing this in mind, David Chess There is no doubting that the Melissa Unlike the victims of the 1988 Internet poses some appropriate questions, “How virus, while causing untold grief across Worm, which only God could have fore- will the continued growth of the Internet the world, was also a valuable wake-up seen, we are now in a much better posi- change the pattern of virus spread and call, in that while updating their anti- tion to postulate, prophesy and prepare. similar threats. Is our current paradigm of virus software against Melissa, users auto- Requiring no human intervention, the virus containment sufficient for the matically protected themselves from a Internet Worm’s automatic spread was future?” In 199,7 Chess foresaw integrat- host of other viruses that had not hit yet, facilitated by some Unix bugs and fea- ed mail systems and mobile code having some of which were actually more malev- tures that simply allowed it to hop from an impact on virus spread. There is no olent than Melissa. This was highlighted machine to machine, replicating and denying that this in fact has been the case, with the case of the Chernobyl strain CIH, executing in what seemed an unstop- and while ease of use and functionality is which hit at least 540 000 computers in pable demonic cycle. This is the type of paramount for the average Internet user, South Korea and Turkey in April 1999, automatic spread that can also be the technology used to achieve this is with a payload of reformatting hard dri- enabled by mobile code. There are facilitating the active spread of network- ves and in some instances, zapping a key enough analysts and anti-virus resources aware viruses. “We need to be prepared chip on the computer motherboard. out there to keep us aware of the threats for a world in which this sort of attack is Discovered in May 1998 and believed to and to advice us on practising 'safe com- common, by employing security systems have originated in Taiwan, it is aimed at puting'. There are enough uploads, that can deal with them routinely and Windows 95/98 platforms.