Talk:Computer virus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

V.I.R.U.S. - Vital Information Resource Under Siege

Hello people, someone told me that virus means Vital Information Resource Under Siege. Is this true? Any comment is appreciated. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atommaster4 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Well, that could be defined as an acronym, but the term for a computer virus is taken from biology for a virus that causes disease, because computer viruses spread in a way similar to biological viruses and make computers sick, similar to biological viruses making organisms sick. The word is originally from Greek and means poison.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well known "backronym", a made up construction supposedly accounting for the name, but this supposed acronym did not appear until well over a decade after the term virus was in common use for computer viruses. The point about viruses, in biological terms, is that they require a host in order to reproduce, unlike other organisms like bacteria that reproduce independently. Computer viruses reproduce and spread by subverting some other computer program (not necessarily an executable file) and do not reproduce on their own (by definition). Incidentally, this V.I.R.U.S. nonsense comes up in here repeatedly, and is repeatedly debunked, but the automatic archiving of the talk pages repeatedly removes the discussion so the whole farrago has to be repeated over and over. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. A stupid "backronym" that won't go away. As TheNameWithNoMan points out, a computer virus requires an automated host to reproduce, just as a biological virus requires a biological host to reproduce, and both cause undesirable symptoms (disease). Strict usage distinguishes viruses, which require a host, from other malware, such as worms, that may reproduce independently (like bacteria) and Trojan horses, that do not reproduce (although they may carry other malware that does reproduce). (The original Trojan horse, of course, was really a troop carrier.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Add to top

Hello. I request that at the top of the page, you add this with the list of viruses: Rouge security software. I appreciate if you do. 98.116.179.22 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent change to intro/definition

This describes only one type of virus, the file infecter. Many viruses don't infect files at all. Some of the most successful of the early viruses were those that infected the boot sectors of floppy disks, or the boot or partition sectors of hard disks. Others seemed to infect files, but made no change to the file at all, instead spoofing the filing system to load the virus code from another location before running the intended executable file. The previous definition was carefully crafted to include all the types of virus. The current one is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNameWithNoMan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So my edit to include non-file programs has been reverted by Mesoderm. Would he care to explain which file is infected by Brain, one of the very first computer viruses and the first to be widespread in the real world? Or Michelangelo, another famous early virus? TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Category deletions

Please delete pig Malware. pig Computer viruses is already a subcat of Malware and having both the article and the subcat there is redundant clutter. Please delete cat Internet security. Everyone likes to be associated with the internet, but this article is general, not internet specific, and will be found in the appropriate categories by those interested. thanks, 50.136.247.190 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"The vast majority of viruses (over 99%) target systems running Microsoft Windows, "

I have read the 3 references cited for this claim and can't find a statistic for 99% of viruses being Windows, let alone a reliable one. Can someone please double check this for me? If it's not there then we can remove it. Yes, Most viruses are Windows, but having a statistic with no fact behind it is no good way of getting this point across. 85.255.235.18 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the statistic. Two of the sources seem not to have it. There's one I can't check but it's too old to be reliable. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad Picture

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's possible for a computer virus to make a hand come out of the computer screen and start pressing buttons on the keyboard. Ok, they can enable remote access from another computer via the internet, but they can't make a hand come through the computer screen. The picture is terrible. If other users agree with me, I think it should be removed. Ezza1995 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. That image is too metaphorical. 67.180.67.173 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Also agree. It looks like an image you'd see over the shoulder of an evening news anchor during a "will hackers steal your life???" segment. A virus doesn't necessarily allow someone to access your computer and isn't at all like a hand coming out of the screen. It doesn't describe a virus in any meaningful encyclopedic way, so I removed it. --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Creative photo, but it does nothing to promote an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. For reference, the image discussed is File:Virus.jpg. Incidentally, the image is probably a copyvio as well - the person who uploaded it claims ownership as of 2013, but it was published on the internet as early as 2011, ie [1]. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Article has biases/lacks essential information

While reading this article, I couldn't help but think that the contributors were mainly Linux/Mac users because of the blatant disregard for impartiality.

Although it is true that Windows machines are most infected, that does not mean this is solely because of design flaws as the reader of this article would conclude.

There has to be an emphasis on the massive number of persons using Windows clients and how this plays a factor in viruses being made to affect most users. Furthermore, there was no mention in this article as to how to evade viruses and use safe practices to avoid infection. As I read this article, it came across that the contributors were insinuating that if one were to use a Windows machine, it is guaranteed one would be prone to getting a virus.

Instead of focusing on loyalties to operating systems, and preferences, this article should focus on the facts. Facts such as that if one uses a Windows PC with a bit of common sense and employs safe practices (e.g., not opening files from unknown senders, not swapping flash drives from machine to machine, keeping the machine updated, avoiding sketchy sites, avoiding "free" downloads, not installing pirated software, etc.) it is actually very uncommon to get a virus.

The tidbit on Apple using "the fact that Windows machines get more viruses" as a ploy for advertising should be removed as many of Apple's advertising techniques play on misconceptions and untruths.

Lastly, a section or a redirect on how to avoid virus infection should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polancox (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. The citation for the statement "Theoretically, other operating systems are also susceptible to viruses, but in practice these are extremely rare or non-existent, due to much more robust security architectures in Unix-like systems (including Linux and Mac OS X)..." says absolutely nothing of the sort. It doesn't even Imply that. Nor, for that matter, would the writer of said Forbes Magazine article be considered an authority on the subject. Conversely, not too long ago, Eugene Kaspersky - one of the foremost authorities on the subject - notably claimed that the Mac operating system was a decade behind Windows. What's worse, the paragraph directly preceding that statement says that "The vast majority of viruses target systems running Microsoft Windows. This is due to Microsoft's large market share of desktop users." which is a far more accurately analyses of the same matter. I see no reason to keep a contradictory account. And say that other operating systems are "theoretically susceptible" is simply factually innaccurate. They are susceptible to viruses. This very article lists examples of them. Rarity of infection in no way makes infection "theoretical." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithTDK (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Probability of self modifying code

Self modifiing code is not as rare as stated in the article, in fact it is very common, thought most programmers don't see it. Types of self modifing code are :

  • Self decompressing Executable (very common)
  • Hardware adaption of libraries (common,for example the Floating point emulator of Turbo C overwrites its calls with actual floating point instrucutions if an FPU is found)
  • Self decryption for copyright issues (the video-game Obitus for example does this to avoid cracking or disassembling)
  • Explicitly written for performance (rare, and only "true programmers" are capable to do this)

So, self modifying code alone is no way to find a virus, as were are many false postives. --62.227.196.161 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

The article starts with a hatnote warning the reader not to confuse a computer virus with a computer worm. The lead image, File:Virus Blaster.jpg, however, depicts not a computer virus but instead a computer worm called Blaster. Should this be changed? Deli nk (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Computer virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Computer virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Computer virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessment was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Assessment by 967Bytes. The current C rating seems appropriate here. There's reasonably deep and referenced material but there is still significant work to be done on flow, organization and consistency in presentation. For example the Operations & functions of a virus section and some of the others could be converted from outline form to prose. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Thats true @Kvng:, here is the outline that I am working to achieve User_talk:FockeWulf_FW_190#Computer_virus, I have referenced all the materials that needed citation as you can see in the old version of the article, which makes it possible to reach B article standards, as for GA or FA standards, I am still way too far, it's not impossible, but it will take a long time to reach it, the flow, organization and images/source codes are still missing, please use the template "re" or any similar template in order for it to appear in my notification tap instead of template "u". 967Bytes (Contact) 12:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Improper material

  1. Computer_virus#Read_request_intercepts The content is correct, but does not fall under the main 4 known categories of viruses which are (Stealth, Encrypted, Metamorphic and Polymorphic)
  2. Computer_virus#Self-modification despite that fact I did not find citation for this yet, the material should be listed under Metamorphic or Polymorphic).

@FockeWulf FW 190: @Kvng: I am thinking of moving #1 to a subpart of Stealth, and totally remove #2. 967Bytes (Contact) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Earliest Use

Greg Benford who worked on ARPANet in the late 60s seems to have originated the term "VIRUS" (and the concept?) in his short story "The Scarred Man" published May 1970. (story text on his website http://www.gregorybenford.com/extra/the-scarred-man-returns/) The story centered on software that replicated itself with malicious intent. It's included in Dial&Easton's Visions of Tomorrow: Science Fiction Predictions that Came True http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?321048 I got here from self-replicating machines, who had inquired on the When HARLIE Was One talk page about an early virus story. The Benford info is now added into the self-replicating article - it had the correct plot, but had misattributed the title for years. I'm assuming people watching this article are less easy-going, lol, so I don't want to edit anything here. Leaving it on you guys. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect inference

Here, it says "This is due to Microsoft's large market share of desktop users."

Isn't this to be argued? The reference is only to a metric and makes no comments whatsoever. I think it's got to do with more things than just the market share of the OS. Should I just change this to my will? I'm worried because this line creeped into my college notes(copied by the professor) and I think it's just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.21.59 (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right; the claim is unsourced and should probably be removed. Is there a weaker claim that could be supported by citation? 2604:6000:130A:C059:D564:D039:8151:82E8 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Computer virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

encrypted files image

I've removed this image again: file:Computer Virus rename the files randomly for the names and extensions.jpg.png as it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion: Neither the edit summary nor article itself say which virus has caused this activity, and the actual image file summary doesn't include the above information either. Additionally much of the information in the file is non-English, which although doesn't automatically exclude it, doesn't count in its favour either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Mac virus found in the wild

This sentence is no longer accurate and should be deleted or changed.

"There are no known viruses that have spread "in the wild" for Mac OS X."

[1] ABC report on the Flashback virus

References

  1. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/04/mac-os-x-report-virus-infects-600000-computers/

You know what I want to proceed with brain virus mac ones Shyam Narayan Nayak (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information

"Computer viruses currently cause billions of dollars' worth of economic damage each year,[15] due to causing system failure, wasting computer resources, corrupting data, increasing maintenance costs, etc. In response, free, open-source antivirus tools have been developed, and an industry of antivirus software has cropped up, selling or freely distributing virus protection to users of various operating systems.[16] As of 2005, even though no currently existing antivirus software was able to uncover all computer viruses (especially new ones), computer security researchers are actively searching for new ways to enable antivirus solutions to more effectively detect emerging viruses, before they have already become widely distributed.[17]"

This entire paragraph cites sources from the early to mid 00's. I don't dare remove it myself, but should it really be included? The internet has changed *a lot* since 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.74.179 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Vulnerability of different operating systems" section also needs to be updated. The section gives the impression that the only virus affecting Unix/Linux is a research project from 1997, which has not been the case for a while. Cheloniophile (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Move

To me, it seems that Virus (computing) or Virus (computer security) would be a more appropriate title. --99.198.29.130 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t we have computers that won’t get viruses?

This article ought to explain why computers are vulnerable to viruses, and what useful capabilities a computer would necessarily lack if it were designed so as to be invulnerable to viruses. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the computer could not be updated, once delivered. Nor could it be updated from a thumb drive, or other hard media. Computer would still need some kind of firewall that examined new data. Downloads with .exe or .com suffixes would be flagged/rejected, even if innocuous. Only .html modules (web) could be downloaded. Pretty limited use. Nothing wrong mentioning this somewhere. There are other threats, so there might be a separate article. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Legality

I didn’t notice anything about legality, here. Should be something that describes statues against this, torts, etc. probably separate article. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_virus/Archive_3&oldid=1207381092"