Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 16:12:28 PST
From: RISKS Forum <risks@csl.sri.com>
Subject: RISKS DIGEST 15.38

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Saturday 15 January 1994  Volume 15 : Issue 38

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 08:24:00 -0800
From: Phil Agre <pagre@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Wild agents in Telescript?

The 6 Jan 1994 New York Times carries an article (business section, pages C1
and C4) by John Markoff about General Magic's Telescript language.  The
article likens software agents to viruses and worms and concentrates on the
liability issues associated with a developing "ecology" of bits of software
moving around through networks.  My first reaction was that the folks at
General Magic can't be too happy about the NYT putting this spin on its new
product.  After all, the problem with viruses and worms is not precisely that
they travel but that they multiply, and few applications of agents, at least
the ones most commonly envisioned, require unbounded replication.  But then I
wondered, how safe are we in a world that includes a widely distributed
programming language in which a ten-year-old can write a heavy-duty worm?  And
Risks readers will guffaw at the following sentence in the article's last
paragraph: "In an effort to lock the doors against potential vandals, General
Magic has designed Telescript so that many of the most common computer
security loopholes are impossible".  It goes on to mention that General Magic
has licensed encryption technology from RSA Data Security.  I'm looking
forward to the first few reverse-engineered Telescript products.

Best wishes to General Magic.

Phil Agre, UCSD

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 15.38
************************