Let slip the dogs of virus war

Rob Rosenberger, Vmyths co-founder
Tuesday, 30 October 2001

CONGRESS AND THE ~~state~~commonwealth of Virginia seem to be fixated on the idea of a "virus war." I'll cover the topic as only I can.

The world at large relies entirely on an antivirus cartel for its security. China alone remains unaddicted to what the antivirus industry offers.

A couple of obvious problems come to mind when you think of a virus war. For one thing, how would you control a virus so it doesn't attack your own computers or those of an ally? Experts beat all of the obvious horses to death years ago, and Congress now beats those dead horses in the experts' absence. 'Nuff said.

Instead, let's delve into a topic the virus experts don't bother to discuss. It goes back to the very concept of warfare, where one or more defensive armies struggle against one or more aggressor armies. An aggressor launches an attack — say, against an industrial center — and a defender makes every effort to protect their home turf (or their allies' turf).

But guess what? We don't rely on armies to protect our computers from viruses. We hire private security guards to protect our sovereign PCs. You know them as antivirus vendors.

Part 1: the U.S. military is a non-combatant

TRUE COMBATANTS IN a virus war must at least possess the ability to defend their own PCs. Sovereign countries — or more accurately, "addicted nation-state clients" — cannot play a combatant role if they rely entirely on the antivirus industry for protection. This means our vaunted U.S. military is a non-combatant, for example. Indeed, the world at large relies solely on the antivirus industry for its protection. No nation in the western hemisphere and no nation in Europe can defend its own national cyber-interests.

A virus war would pit an aggressor army against the antivirus industry, which qualifies by definition as a cartel. This cartel sees everyone as a potential client — even an aggressor army. Strictly for profit reasons, it serves the cartel's best interests to protect Osama bin Laden's laptop from every virus written by a CIA cyber-team, and vice-versa. It behooves vendors to protect everyone from everything, whereas an army's antivirus program would want its own viruses (and perhaps its allies' viruses) to remain undetected for obvious reasons.

Of all the nation-states on Earth, China alone could engage in a virus war, for three very important reasons:

Beijing requires antivirus vendors to supply them with virus technology before they can sell antivirus software in China;
Beijing works closely with antivirus experts (far more closely than the cartel admits!) to learn how their antivirus software protects against aggressor viruses; and

Beijing recognizes the cartel's profit myopia and, yes, they actively exploit it. Antivirus customers will learn a lesson the hard way if The Red Menace ever launches a virus war.
Beijing produces a xenophobic antivirus program known as "Kill," which they can rapidly deploy throughout China for both defensive and offensive purposes.

I once again insist no terrorist on Earth could launch an effective virus war since no terrorist on Earth currently exploits these three traits.

China leveraged itself into such a strong position with the antivirus cartel because vendors see Beijing as a potential addict rather than as a potential enemy. The cartel doesn't see treaties and armies — they see contracts and money. Virus technology is a commodity for sale to non-addicted armies. Antivirus technology is likewise a commodity — although vendors claim they don't sell it to clients.

(At least not to addicted clients. Ah, the rumors I could tell the feds if they ever again knock on my door in the middle of the night.)

Beijing long ago recognized the antivirus cartel's profit myopia and, yes, they actively exploit it. Antivirus customers will learn a lesson the hard way if The Red Menace ever launches a virus war.

[continued in part 2]