Infection: Trojan horse Downloader.Generic9.AQZF
in [Viruses]
|
Prev: VIRUS QUESTION
Next: Ping: David H Lipman
From: FromTheRafters on 21 Mar 2010 19:19 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:ho66hi02n0c(a)news3.newsguy.com... > From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> > > | Good catch, TRT > > | It states quite clearly:- > > | "Symptoms of worms and *trojan horse viruses* in e-mail messages" > > If you take it into conext then it has a different meaning. > > The sentence isn't stating that a particular malware as a trojan or a > virus but is > qualifying the email viruese as being trojan horse viruses. Defining > a email virus as a > Trojan horse Virus is describing the email carrier of the email virus > as a trojan horse. > It is confusing, yes. But it is "typing" a malware as one or the > other but is qualifying > the delivery vehicle of the virus, email, as the trojan horse. E-mail virus is also a misnomer, should be e-mail vector virus or e-mail borne virus. One might also consider that a virally infected program file fits the definition of trojan, unless you add the non-replicating disqualifier. As you know, the real issue is that such a virus is a "trojan and more" and as such is called a virus. It still does something in addition to or instead of what the user expected or wanted it to do. The Epeian virus (trojan horse) is a "virus and less" IOW a virus that doesn't replicate and infect in its current environmental context (perhaps no files suitable for infection were found).
From: David H. Lipman on 21 Mar 2010 19:35 From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message | news:ho66hi02n0c(a)news3.newsguy.com... >> From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> >> | Good catch, TRT >> | It states quite clearly:- >> | "Symptoms of worms and *trojan horse viruses* in e-mail messages" >> If you take it into conext then it has a different meaning. >> The sentence isn't stating that a particular malware as a trojan or a >> virus but is >> qualifying the email viruese as being trojan horse viruses. Defining >> a email virus as a >> Trojan horse Virus is describing the email carrier of the email virus >> as a trojan horse. >> It is confusing, yes. But it is "typing" a malware as one or the >> other but is qualifying >> the delivery vehicle of the virus, email, as the trojan horse. | E-mail virus is also a misnomer, should be e-mail vector virus or e-mail | borne virus. | One might also consider that a virally infected program file fits the | definition of trojan, unless you add the non-replicating disqualifier. | As you know, the real issue is that such a virus is a "trojan and more" | and as such is called a virus. It still does something in addition to or | instead of what the user expected or wanted it to do. The Epeian virus | (trojan horse) is a "virus and less" IOW a virus that doesn't replicate | and infect in its current environmental context (perhaps no files | suitable for infection were found). It does get compliacted. That's WHY we must educate. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Dustin Cook on 21 Mar 2010 20:06 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:ho68m8$4vl$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in message > news:ho64qb$9v0$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org... >> MS calls them Trojan virus so nobody is wrong or right. >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972 > > I was aware of that (and from many other reputable vendors of > antivirus/antimalware). > > Just because they are experts, doesn't make them right. :o) > > I prefer the definitions proposed by non-antimalware experts (computer > science experts) because I agree with them that viruses (in particular) > are not necessarily malicious and could be applied benevolently. And yet, no-one has written a completely harmless virus which has any benefit whatsoever that couldn't be achieved, non-virally.... It's been a very long long time, and still; nothing fitting that criteria has ever been produced by the proponents of a "good" virus. :) I just want you to know, that paragraph took a bit of typing for me; I was once one of the bad guys. hehehe... I hate being wrong, ya know? :) -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: David H. Lipman on 21 Mar 2010 20:29 From: "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> | "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:ho68m8$4vl$1 | @news.eternal-september.org: >> "The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in message >> news:ho64qb$9v0$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org... >>> MS calls them Trojan virus so nobody is wrong or right. >>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972 >> I was aware of that (and from many other reputable vendors of >> antivirus/antimalware). >> Just because they are experts, doesn't make them right. :o) >> I prefer the definitions proposed by non-antimalware experts (computer >> science experts) because I agree with them that viruses (in particular) >> are not necessarily malicious and could be applied benevolently. | And yet, no-one has written a completely harmless virus which has any | benefit whatsoever that couldn't be achieved, non-virally.... It's been a | very long long time, and still; nothing fitting that criteria has ever been | produced by the proponents of a "good" virus. :) | I just want you to know, that paragraph took a bit of typing for me; I was | once one of the bad guys. hehehe... I hate being wrong, ya know? :) What was the name of that claened another email virus ? Remember that so-called benevolent email virus Netsky that puported to remove MyDoom and Bagle (Mitglieder) ? -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: FromTheRafters on 21 Mar 2010 20:53
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D42CD8C94A5AHHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in > news:ho68m8$4vl$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > >> "The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in message >> news:ho64qb$9v0$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org... >>> MS calls them Trojan virus so nobody is wrong or right. >>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972 >> >> I was aware of that (and from many other reputable vendors of >> antivirus/antimalware). >> >> Just because they are experts, doesn't make them right. :o) >> >> I prefer the definitions proposed by non-antimalware experts >> (computer >> science experts) because I agree with them that viruses (in >> particular) >> are not necessarily malicious and could be applied benevolently. > > And yet, no-one has written a completely harmless virus which has any > benefit whatsoever that couldn't be achieved, non-virally.... It's > been a > very long long time, and still; nothing fitting that criteria has ever > been > produced by the proponents of a "good" virus. :) > > I just want you to know, that paragraph took a bit of typing for me; I > was > once one of the bad guys. hehehe... I hate being wrong, ya know? :) I understand your reluctance. But be that as it may, it doesn't preclude any future need to use the viral function. One that I mentioned in a previous discussion was in regard to replicating robotic pioneers. While they are close enough to have command and control send new software, there is no need for viruses. If they get too far away for that to be feasible, self-replicating software must accompany the self-replicating robots. |