The following excerpts are from an article entitled, Computer viruses vs biological viruses.
http://vimeo.com/21193583Dr Wassenaar, currently an MRC-funded Distinguished Visiting Scientist based with Prof. Al Lastovica (Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Cape Town), says that computer programmers and biomedical clinicians have a lot more in common than they might think. Like viruses, for instance.
"Our knowledge of biological viruses can help identify the routes that virus programmers have taken, and will take, in due course. But less obviously, the Internet is a real-time evolutionary model of infectious diseases for clinicians to study," she says.
[...]
Both biological viruses (living organisms made up of DNA or RNA inside a protein coating) and their cyberspace counterparts (computer programs written by mean-minded computer boffins) parasitise on their host and can only replicate when inside that host.
[...]
The term 'computer virus' can actually mean one of three things: a virus (a program that implants a version of itself in any program it can modify and then spreads to files within a computer, or with user interaction like sharing infected disks, between computers), a worm (a harmful program that spreads copies between computers in a network, such as the Internet, without user interaction) or a Trojan horse (a program that makes a computer available to non-authorised users).
A virus, worm or Trojan horse can (like HIV) be latent, only to become active after a certain period. This is called a 'logic bomb'. These three classes of computer malware can also have hundreds of variants or several slightly modified versions, which parallel microbial diversity.
[...]
Dr Wassenaar draws some interesting parallels when it comes to the dissemination or spread of viruses. "Because worms spread without any user interaction, they are like socially transmitted diseases such as influenza, that have the potential to infect everyone susceptible. In contrast, computer viruses are like sexually transmitted diseases. Their spread (through sharing infected diskettes) is like that of STDs, whose spread is related to specific behavioural practices. 'Logic bombs' are like HIV, because they are only activated at a later date," she explains.
[...]
Dr Wassenaar thinks we can learn from biology. Nature has evolved immunity that protects plants and animals against a broad range of pathogens. "In any human being's gut there are native microflora that render partial protection against infections. Could we perhaps design 'benign' computer viruses, that could spread through the Internet in an uncontrolled manner, automatically block entries for malign viruses, update our antiviral programs or inactivate existing viruses? Microbiologists can help programmers to combat viruses - computer immunity may be expensive, but eventually we'll have to accept the risks and costs involved," she says.
But, conversely, the study of computer malware may help to control infectious disease emergence. "The Internet is a good model to study the development of infections and how they spread through our increasingly small world. The speed of virtual pathogen evolution makes it possible to follow the process of mutation and selection real-time," Dr Wassenaar argues.
Source: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/200...er/viruses.htm
The following excerpts were taken from an article called, Computer and biological viruses might eventually converge.
The term "computer virus" was coined by Fred Cohen in the early 1980s, because like its biological counterparts, the computer virus is essentially a sequence of information that codes its behavior in a host system.
[...]
When it comes to the viruses' ability to change in order to evade detection, biological viruses are and computer ones are both capable of polymorphism and successful at it. But the same cannot be yet said for the ability of mixing, as there are still rare examples of malware intentionally or unintentionally "infecting" or changing other malware in order to propagate itself.
Most biological viruses are not effective straight away. This is either because they haven’t replicated enough yet and are not numerous enough, and/or because they do not immediately start to replicate," say the researchers, and point out that this "time bomb" approach is not often seen with computer viruses.
[...]
But the biggest difference seems to be in the fact that computer viruses are simply more complex and contain more "code" that dictates their behavior, thus allowing their creators more space to implement advanced tricks such as packing, encryption, virtual machine detection or anti-debugging tricks.
Just imagine what would happen if biological viruses had the equivalent techniques at their disposal to thwart those who want to study and analyze them - never mind those who are infected with them!
All in all, given the similarities between the two types of viruses, the question that the researchers are trying to answer is whether the lines between the two can be blurred enough in the future to allow biological viruses to affect machines and computer ones "infect" people?
While biologic viruses have been successfully synthesized by scientists, computer viruses that evolve by themselves have still not been spotted in the wild. They have been instances where researchers created computer viruses that evolve along the Darwinian rules, but they were never released outside of a lab.
"Without going as far as spontaneous sentient life creation, would it at least be possible that a computer virus appears out of the data flowing on the wires around the World?" ask the researchers.
"No documented case of such exists, yet the question is not so incongruous. Security researchers, more than anyone, know that software is full of bugs, and that presented with particular inputs, the execution flow may be diverted to arbitrary or unexpected portions of the memory. What if that portion contains data that, accidentally, forms the code of a simple virus? Unlikely? Yes, and even more so if we expect that virus to have capacities to evolve. But impossible? No."
Their conclusion matches the one they made regarding the possibility of biological and computer viruses existing and functioning in each other's original realms.
With the use of electronic devices (medical or otherwise) embedded in the human body and their inevitable need to communicate with outside devices, a computer virus can physically affect humans. And when researchers code synthetic viruses, they use computers to do it.
"Seeing that the infamous Stuxnet virus, in 2010, was able to creep through a uranium enrichment plant, seize control of its PLC, and destroy its centrifuging gear, one could reasonably think that a virus infecting the computers sporting DNA databases is not outside the realm of possibility," they point out. "From there, the virus could very well inject a parasitic replicative sequence in the genes being synthesized, and see it grown in lab (or worse, at industrial scale). Thereby hoping from the computer into the biological realm."
Source: http://www.net-security.org/malware_news.php?id=2041
See also: http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/...life-with-dna/