Interview with Urnst Kouch
Crypt Newsletter

Give me a short description of who you are!

Urnst Kouch, editor of Crypt Newsletter.

Why did you picked that alias, Urnst Kouch?

No reason - it's just a name.

How long have you been scene-active? (both normal and underground)

I don't closely distinguish the 'normal' and the 'underground', as others. To me, it's all the same - all part of computing. People use different jargon, wear different uniforms, have different interests but motivations and behavior are pretty much the same. Maybe that sounds heretical to you, but I assure you, it's how I look at it.

When did you started your bbs? (why?)

I started my system as a convenience - an easy way to talk to virus programmers.

What to you think about the bbs-community (past and now-a-days)

It's very stale. But, unlike some, I don't think there ever was a golden age of BBS'ing. There were extremely focused computer aficianados who broke ground with like-minded users. They were all very into the idea of electronic communities. But, all communities, whether made of brick and stone or wires and chips have one common factor, humanity. My hometown is, by and large, largely ignorant, gossipy dickheads. It's stale and always has been. BBS communities are built along the same lines - clubby, like-minded individuals who - by and large - enjoy trivial gossip which they're convinced is of earth-shattering significance. If you look in from the outside, it's pretty stale, too. Different media, same old song and dance. I must confess, I don't think it will change much, unless you really buy into the concepts of real-time pornographic chat lines or the hoarding of software as socially invigorating developments.

How did you came into the virus scene?

Back in 1992 around the time of the great Michelangelo hype, it became necessary as part of my job at a newspaper to learn something of computer viruses. And it became readily apparent that I wasn't going to learn anything of viruses by talking to 'experts' on the subject, although they were all happy to sell me software, thank you. So I became determined to find viruses and virus source code by myself, so that it could be determined what these programs did at a very fundamental level.

What part of the underground do you think needs improvements?

The underground could stand to be less adolescent and secretive. When big corporations are secretive, everyone gets annoyed and cries foul, so why is this a desirable trait in the underground? I mean, unless you're really a psychopath and into 'breaking the law, breaking the law!', I don't get it.

Which groups/mags have you been involved with?

Crypt Newsletter, that's it.

Tell me the background history of Crypt Newsletter?

It's two years old and has been steadily monthly since I started it with another fellow, since departed, by the name of Pallbearer. For the first year, it focused primarily on virus issues, but for the last year it's quickly branched into just about anything to do with science, technology and computers that catches my fancy. We have a funny media critic known as Mr. Badger and the newsletter has been extremely effective at lining the walls of my library with all manner of books on science and technology which I get as review copies. And I do review them! Much of the virus material in the newsletter is serving as the basis for a book on the virus underground which I'll be finished with around September.

Who is the persons behind Crypt?

Originally, it was myself and Pallbearer. Pallbearer dropped out after a few issues. Then Mr. Badger wrote me a letter I liked so much I asked to publish it. From there, I was able to persuade him to contribute regularly. There's Stormbringer, whose contributed quite a bit of code, along with Nikademus, who lives across the country from me. And let's not forget the mighty Kohntark who serves as what I like to call our Entropic Systems Editor.

From where do you got all the support stuff for Crypt?

Ummm, support stuff? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. If you mean where it's distributed, I don't have a master plan. I felt it was good and that if so, others would pick up the ball without prompting and make it convenient for other people to find, and that's pretty much what has happened.

Can everyone include stuff in Crypt Newsletter?

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that the door's always open and I'll look at anything at least once. No, in that the newsletter is rather idiosyncratic in its style - and I like to keep it that way. It gives it a consistent quality. It's tough for people to hit that style the way I like it, and if that's the case I generally don't want to use their material. I suggest try again next time or send it around to someone who may be a better fit with what the contributor produces.

Which other 'magazine' do you think is the best one available?

It's poor form - and ungentlemanly, besides - to comment on competitors and colleagues.

Which group are you considering as the best virus-writing group?

I'm inclined to favor TridenT, but that's because I like their idiosyncratic thinking. Plus, they've always been generous of ideas with Crypt. This is meant as no slight to anyone else.

Why do you think it's important for groups to release magazine's, news-letter, info-journals, etc? (Why does everybody realese them?)

I'm for anything or anyone with a journalistic bent. If it's important to you that a story - as you see it - be told, then it's important to do some kind of magazine or publication. You can't depend on the mainstream to do it, or even get it right, so there needs to be a balance between the do-it-yourselfer's and the corporate giants. Plus, I think anyone can see that the press as they've been taught to recognize it, is not particularly fair or even free, which makes it essential that other points of view have a venue to speak in, even if it's small.

Do you write own viruses?

Yes.

Then, which one have you written?

Hah. I'll paraphrase 'The Prisoner.' That would be telling.

What do you think about destructive viruses?

The term destructive viruses is a non-issue. Consider a moment what the average computer user - one who can barely figure out Windows or DOS - thinks of the term virus, pounded in to him by the media for the last three years. Destructive virus is redundant. To him, all viruses, are destructive. In fact, any program which would complicate turning on the PC or make it behave more weirdly than it already does, would be classified destructive. A virus that overwrites the hard file with trash isn't much of a distinction from one that has no such code, to this user. So - it's purely an argument for programmers, basically, . . . or brain dead computer journalists who feel it's a topic worth writing about. Of course, we _know_ there are people interested in viruses as tools for studying artificial life; those interested in using virus-like action in house-keeping software robots and certain individuals - in the military, as well as hobbyists - who write viruses to specifically corrupt data. It's all part of a spectrum which is not of much interest to the average user and, to me, the differences have no particularly special social or moral value. It's just code, all part of the stuff of which viruses are made.

Describe the perfect virus:

There is no more a 'perfect' virus than there are any 'perfect' operating systems. A 'perfect' virus would be 100 percent undetectable and completely transparent on any system. And then how would you even know the virus was there? You wouldn't. It's like the old argument, 'Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there's no one there to hear it?' How can you tell? Next question.

There is lotsa Polymorphic engines out there, but not too many seems too use them, do you have a theory of why?

Yes, polymorphic objects aren't truly plug-and-play. They're poorly documented and certain features of many carry over from characteristics of the Mutation Engine, which wasn't particularly relocatable. So offspring of the MtE, so to speak, aren't relocatable, which limits their ease of use. That being the case, most people will try and design their own engines from the ground up without worrying about if others will use it. Hence, they never really became 'user-friendly.'

Which engine do you considering as the best?

Who knows?

Do you know/heard of any new virus-writing technics coming in the near future?

Yes, I suspect there will be a continued fascination with cramming advanced stealth, tunneling, and multi-partitism into one virus, along with active and passive anti-anti-virus code. All this will succeed in doing is guaranteeing the viruses won't do very well off the drawing board, simply because they're overly complex, and complexity breeds unpredictable bugginess.

What do you think the future is for writing viruses for WIN and OS/2?

If and when it happens in a significant manner, it won't be done by the virus programmers we see now. They just have shown no real interest in the effort it would take to write successful replicating code for these operating systems. Conceptually, we should be seeing more imaginative applications of the term 'virus'. This hasn't happened; there's been nothing really unique for at least a year.

Whats your oppinion about the AV-community?

They're hard-scrabble businessmen with all the charm and panache of a 60 pound bag of money-mad cockroaches.

Which AV-program do you think it's the best?

No product endorsements from me, puh-leeze.

What do you think about the underground's future?

It will continue to stumble along at about the same pace as we've seen for the past two years. Count on more lamers, if only for the media-generated hype about the Information Highway.

What do you think about the government forbidding virus-writing? Do you think this will help agains new infections?

No, I don't. Do you? Of what possible value would such a law prove against the primary replicators FORM, STONED and JERUSALEM variants? As for newer viruses which might - theoretically - become prominent: Anyone in the known virus underground won't be writing them because the scene is far too well-publicized internally. There is no window of opportunity for new viruses which come from this quarter to spread, if someone is trying to do so. However, a loner who keeps to himself _could_ write a virus which would have a longer window of opportunity. If such occurs, law won't control such infections anymore than current criminal statutes curb serial killers.

What do you think about that term computer nerds?

It's jargon stupid magazines staffed with reporter who use word processors as manure shovels seem to like.

Do you considering yourself as a criminal (doing HP?)

Not even close.

Your opinion about the punishment for all cyber-crimes?

The record is that punishment for cybercrime tends to be out of proportion to actual damage done, period. Take it a step further and you realize it's unconstitutional - remember the 'no cruel and unusual punishment' statute in our Constitution? But hackers, actually, have it no worse than any other of the cultural undesirables in the US - like the poor, the nuts, the sick, foreigners, the perceived minorities, anyone under eighteen - any group which is an easy target for unreciprocated revenge gets the chop when it comes to unfair punishment for presumed crimes. It's a 'let's get even' thing which is satifying to the stupid proles - even though they're targets, too.

Something else you wish to say?

Yes, if you think this kind of material is intriguing look for my book on the virus underground late this year. I guarantee it'll be a good read.

Do you wish to send any greets?

My friends and colleagues know who they are.