Virus threats and attacks hit computers by the hundreds of thousands, with dozens of new worms and viruses discovered daily. Whilst virus detection software is, on the whole, successful, codes can take months to write, and some malware manages to escape the net. The question of whether knowledge of virus programming is beneficial in attacking viruses is still relevant. Do we need the ‘good guys’ who think like the ‘bad guys’? Or are programming and virus programming two separate disciplines, deeming the idea wasteful, if not extremely dangerous?
In favor of the idea is the concept that prevention is better than cure, and that we need the antivirus community to be one step ahead of virus writers. This approach is endorsed by Dr John Aycockat the University of Calgary, who initiated the idea to institutionalize virus programming as a counter-measure for criminal activity as early as 2003. According to Aycock, virus programming is good way to understand how both malicious software and the minds of its creators work. A similar tactic is used by medical researchers, who develop biological viruses to counter those they would like to combat; such has been the case with SARS, and more recently with HIV.
Further to that is the notion that, in the same way laws about prohibition of drugs do not stop their consumption, mystifying the creation of viruses by labeling it as an underground craft won’t work to stop viruses from being created. Young virus writers exist and are educated anyway,and we should make efforts to encourage their curiosity whilst pushing them in positive directions. There should be a strong aim to create a generation of bright programmers who use their laptops to protect the computing industry rather than cause it harm.
Critics of the idea say that you do not need to write new viruses to figure out how they work. Antivirus developer Sophos Inc. states that no researcher of theirs actually writes malicious code. There are enough specimens of viruses that can be studied, and there is no need to create new viruses for the purpose of understand existing ones. Put simply, the writing of viruses and reverse-engineering them are two independent crafts.
There are also concerns about the possibility of code inadvertently breaking out of school labs – it is enough for one hard drive to contaminate a computer outside the school, resulting in disastrous viral spread.
And, worst off, there is no guarantee that students won’t be using the knowledge in wrong ways.Which brings about an ethical question – is equipping young people with tools to be criminals morally correct? And who would be held liable should the worst happen? No one assumes that the police should teach kids how to break into cars in order for them to be better policemen when they grow up. So why do this in the area of computer malware? Becomes Great Mystery.
