FEW things can make a mess quite as fast as a computer can, so it should
come as no surprise that vandals want to exploit them. Vandalism, now electronic
vandalism, has turned its attention to computer viruses, which are malicious
programs that reproduce themselves, get everywhere and cause chaos. Although
authorities disagree about how worrying the virus threat really is, it is
incontestable that there are more and more of them being introduced, and
that they are getting more and more devious. Perhaps the only people to
benefit in the short term are the consultants who stand to make a lot of
money providing advice, rescuing data and disinfecting computers.
Yet I think viruses are going to bring about several changes in computing,
all of which will be beneficial. Most people acknowledge that electronic
vandalism at least exposes security loopholes, but computer viruses go one
step further: our prob lems with them today suggest that a radical rethink
of information technology is needed.
So far as a user of a computer is concerned, there is no difference
between a bug and a virus; that is, between an accidental program fault,
and a deliberate, self-propagating fault. In fact, I have lost far more
data as a result of straightforward bugs in expensive proprietary software
than from viruses. I’m prepared for viruses (with various antiviral programs),
but there is nothing that will protect me from bad software, even if bought
from reputable manufacturers.
Most software manufacturers provide a very flimsy warranty on their
products, the only purpose of which seems to be to protect the manufacturer
from any liability whatsoever. Now that programmers can become Chartered
Engineers, it is time that they took as professional an attitude to their
work as professionals in other disciplines – for instance, by accepting
some liability for the work that they do. (They would obviously need insurance,
but that is not an insurmountable problem.) To change the status quo, there
needs to be considerable pressure. And that pressure will come from viruses.
It seems to me that, while we let software manufacturers hide behind their
unprofessional warranties, we have little redress against deliberately malicious
As vandals produce new viruses, so new antivirus programs have to be
developed or extended to cope with the new strains. Since viruses travel
around so fast, it is extremely important that users can get upgrades of
their antivirus software as fast as possible. Typically, users subscribe
to an antiviral product so that they can easily get updates whenever a new
virus hits the scene. So: viruses put the pressure on to make the upgrading
of software easier. As I argued in Forum towards the end of last year, software
subscription is a good way of doing this (‘No way to sell a program’, 2
Viruses are getting both more widespread and far more subtle. It is
conceivable that soon most personal computers will become practically unusable,
or that their users will have to become recluses so that their machines
don’t get infected. Already, some antivirus software manufacturers have
given up the race, realising that each attempt to produce more effective
antiviral measures seems only to encourage ever more devious viruses to
The basic problem is that we buy computers that can perform all sorts
of functions, many of which we don’t need. Because computers can do anything,
they can (and do) run viruses. If we bought computers that could do only
a few specific things – in the same way as a pocket calculator can only
be a pocket calculator – then the computers simply would not be able to
run viruses. The solution appears to be in a new design of computers.
But new computers that protect against virus infection have got to be
completely incompatible with all current computers. If they could run the
same programs, then they could just as easily run the same viruses. So:
viruses herald a new generation of incompatible computers.
There would be several major advantages to computer users, the most
important of which would be that, if viruses were unable to corrupt programs,
then anything or anyone else would also find it harder. And that includes
the people who write the programs in the first place. If it is harder, practically
impossible, to modify programs once they have been sold, then manufacturers
are going to have to take a lot more care in preparing them. They won’t
be able to ‘patch them up’ later.
It’s nice to think that viruses have a bright side: forcing programs,
professional standards and hardware to improve.
Harold Thimbleby is professor of information technology at the University