I just had a thought, and I wonder if any computer viruses are already using the following strategy.
A necessary condition for the successful propagation of most email worms is that the recipient be fooled into opening the attachment. As users become more savvy, it becomes important that the text of a worm's message be sufficiently clever. For example, "See attachment" may not hack it, but "Did you write this?" might be more effective. This could be why one of the recent viruses has at least 288 possible body messages.
The problem is that the virus writer may not know which are the best messages. My idea is to have the virus evolve, by following this rule: 90% of the time, say, the virus sends out messages with the same body text that it had, i.e. the text that convinced the user to open the attachment. The other 10% of the time, it randomly selects a different body message.
This way, the more successful a body message is, the more it will spread. Weaker messages, on the other hand, will die out.
Does anybody know if current viruses are doing this?
Posted by cradle at March 1, 2004 10:40 PMChristianity
Posted by: Tom at March 1, 2004 10:46 PMHow is the information as to what messages were actually opened converge?
Posted by: at March 2, 2004 12:13 AMSome viruses have used similar methods, but nothing quite so darwinian. My last LJ post was about the fact that apparently viruses don't have to be that clever -- stupid users will simply do it for them.
Most methods that I have seen so far involve doing targeted percentages, (i.e. it is hard-coded to try x 60% of the time, and y 40% of the time). However, numerous viruses in recent times have "reported back" (often to websites which are quickly shut down, but it is acknowledged that there is no way of telling numbers of infected machines that have been polled by people who know what to look for in the aftermath of an outbreak). So, writers could be assembling the "what worked" data, and doing it on their own -- but AFAIK no virus is intelligently doing by itself currently.
Another thought for some scary things in the future of virus development that we may see soon is discussed here: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/221 , where the concept of "smarter" viruses that would cause less "initial" destruction but be of much greater use to the author in the long run as a tool for controlling remote hosts.
Posted by: doug at March 2, 2004 12:21 AMMystery poster #2: What do you mean?
Posted by: David at March 2, 2004 01:26 PMBum bum TAINTED LOVE!
Posted by: Brooke at March 7, 2004 09:38 PMBrooke I notice your post says 'bum' twice and 'taint' once. I ought to be able to come up with a joke about that, but oh well.
Posted by: Andrew at March 8, 2004 09:23 PMThe "taint" is known in medical circles as "The perineal body" The most business part of the bum as the "anal canal"
Posted by: Brooke at March 11, 2004 07:22 AM