Return-Path: XPUM04@prime-a.central-services.umist.ac.uk Received: from G.SEI.CMU.EDU by ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.3) id AA03481; Tue, 19 Jun 90 07:09:30 -0400 Received: from SEI.CMU.EDU by g.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA28561; Tue, 19 Jun 90 07:09:27 -0400 Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.3) id AA01555; Tue, 19 Jun 90 07:09:22 -0400 Received: from sun.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by vax.NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP id aa05086; 19 Jun 90 9:36 BST From: Anthony Appleyard To: DAVIDF@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk Date: Tue, 19 Jun 90 09:42:12 BST Message-Id: <$TGWFCWKBBCVK at UMPA> Subject: Here is Virus-L vol 0 #0921 Virus-L Digest Wed, 21 Sep 88, Volume 0 : Issue #0921 Today's Topics Donald Gene Burleson found guilty info on court case Viruses hit the big time... 2 years probation 2 years probation ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 08:31:04 EDT From: Ken van Wyk Subject: Donald Gene Burleson found guilty I just read an Associated Press (by Tim Lott) news article in an Allentown PA newpaper which said that Donald Gene Burleson, a former programmer, was found guilty of planting a computer virus. The article said that this was the first conviction in the country for such a case. Hopefully it will set a precedent. The conviction itself was for "harmful access to a computer, a third-degree felony that carries up to 10 years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines." According to the article, "A key to the case was the fact that State District Judge John Bradshaw allowed the computer program that deleted the files to be introduced as evidence". Apparently, the virus, if indeed it was a virus, was "activated like a time bomb, doing its damage two days after (the defendant) was fired". It is not clear, to me, that the program was actually a virus and not a simple time bomb. The article adds further confusion to the matter by defining a virus as "...a computer, often hidden in apparently normal computer software, that instructs the computer to change or destroy information at a given time or after a certain sequence of commands." Nonetheless, Mr. Burleson was convicted. His attorney expects him to get "the minimum sentence of two years' probation". It will be interesting to see if more such cases come to light as a result of this one. Ken Kenneth R. van Wyk Calvin: Here, try this new cereal, User Services Senior Consultant Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. Lehigh University Computing Center Hobbes: Gack! Ptui! :-( Internet: Calvin: Yeah, they're a bit bland until BITNET: you scoop some sugar on them. -------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 08:52:20 EDT From: Ken van Wyk Subject: info on court case The conviction that I described earlier, by the way, was in Fort Worth, Texas. Sorry I neglected to mention that before... Ken -------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:42:00 EDT From: NEWTON@NBSENH Subject: Viruses hit the big time... For anyone who hasn't been by a newsstand yet, the current TIME magazine cover is on computer viruses. Haven't read it yet, but thought that this was worth mentioning. Barry -------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 12:46:00 EDT From: me! Jefferson Ogata Subject: 2 years probation It's fascinating that there has actually been a conviction, but I must say two years probation is not likely to serve as the least deterrant to future virus attacks. Probation is a breeze. - Jeff Ogata -------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 13:07:32 EDT From: Bruce Howells Subject: 2 years probation Probation might be a breeze, but... if you were an admissions officer, or interviewing someone, would you accept/hire them into a cs position if they had been convicted of attacking a system via virus? Bruce Howells, engnbsc@buacca.bitnet, engnbsc@buacca.bu.edu - These opinions are my own; and in no way represent those of Boston University or any other organization. (boring disclaimer, but it seemed important on that one.) -------------------- *** end of Virus-L issue ***