Win32/RAMNIT.A Anyone?
in [Viruses]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 07:39 "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:yfqdnRgR46DJw8fRnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > FromTheRafters wrote: > >> Viruses are rather unique > > > Being pedantic and specific, FTR - explain why viruses are not simply > 'unique' - are they is some way /rather/ special? ;-) In addition to being an auto-distribution method for other code, being self-replicating affords them the opportunity to change their appearance with every iteration (self-polymorphism). In this way one beast can result in a large number of cryptographic hashes. In addition to that, the code is often inserted inside the program files of other programs thus making detection (and hash matching) even more difficult. They are not unique in being polymorphic as polymorphism in other distribution methods such as hosting malware on a server can be achieved by server-side code that changes their appearance with each download. So, they are not unique in having the ability to change their appearance, and they are not unique in their ability to self-replicate because computer worms, bacteria, and rabbits are also self-replicating code examples. So, I felt that *rather unique* was the best choice of wording IMO.
From: ~BD~ on 5 Aug 2010 08:14 FromTheRafters wrote: > "~BD~"<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:yfqdnRgR46DJw8fRnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> FromTheRafters wrote: >> >>> Viruses are rather unique >> >> >> Being pedantic and specific, FTR - explain why viruses are not simply >> 'unique' - are they is some way /rather/ special? ;-) > > In addition to being an auto-distribution method for other code, being > self-replicating affords them the opportunity to change their appearance > with every iteration (self-polymorphism). In this way one beast can > result in a large number of cryptographic hashes. In addition to that, > the code is often inserted inside the program files of other programs > thus making detection (and hash matching) even more difficult. They are > not unique in being polymorphic as polymorphism in other distribution > methods such as hosting malware on a server can be achieved by > server-side code that changes their appearance with each download. > > So, they are not unique in having the ability to change their > appearance, and they are not unique in their ability to self-replicate > because computer worms, bacteria, and rabbits are also self-replicating > code examples. > > So, I felt that *rather unique* was the best choice of wording IMO. > > Not a point to argue about - I accept your choice, FTR :)
From: John Slade on 5 Aug 2010 16:20 On 8/4/2010 3:01 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: > "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:NXi6o.35931$F%7.12219(a)newsfe10.iad... >> On 8/3/2010 2:47 PM, Buffalo wrote: >>> Dustin wrote: >>>> That's like some electricians I know that call all 9" linemans >>>> pliers >>>> klein, even tho they aren't. As klein is actually a company name. >>> >>> Hey, how did you know I am a licensed electrician? >>> And yes, it is common in the trade to call them 'kleins', like in, >>> 'can I >>> borrow your kleins?' >>> Buffalo :) >>> >>> >> >> It's like people calling powdered drink mix from Flavor Aid, >> "Kool-Aid". I'm sure we've all heard the expression, "Drinking the >> Kool-Aid" when talking about someone who follows something or someone >> blindly. Well it came from the Jim Jones tragedy in Jonestown, Guyana. >> They drank poisonded Flavor Aid but most people still call it >> Kool-Aid. > > Same sort of thing applies to crescent wrench (Crescent is a brand name > of a very popular open end adjustaqble wrench). Crowbar is another, > where a wrecking bar is almost always incorrectly called a crowbar. > Dykes are a misnomer for the shortening of the tool known as a "diagonal > cutter". > > Most people don't care about using correct terminology, and so there is > often confusion and shouts of *mere semantics* when someone tries to > inform them. > > Terminology is subject to any number of factors. It's perfectly correct to use "virus" when talking about trojans and worms. It's also perfectly correct to call all three "bugs". It just matters what the prevailing thinking is. Also professionals who actually make software that remove malware often called their products anti-virus software. John
From: John Slade on 5 Aug 2010 16:29 On 8/4/2010 2:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: > "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:G1j6o.53362$dx7.3611(a)newsfe21.iad... > > [...] > >> "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term. >> Why do you think they call the software used to clean >> trojans and worms, "Anti-Virus" software? > > Generally, they call it antimalware unless it is also effective against > viruses and worms (which are self-replicators). If it is effective > against viruses, they call it an antivirus. Antivirus programs can also > detect some non-replicating malware. They call it that because it's quite common to refer to all malware as viurses. Been this way for decades. > >> I'm sure you don't think that they only clean viruses >> and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a matter >> of semantics. > > Of course it is, but semantics shouldn't be a dismissive word. The > meanings of words are *important* to effective communications. > It's all a matter of who you're talking to. If the person wants to nitpick even though they know what a person means then what can you do but explain. I've worked for people who are very computer savvy and people who are new to computers. I use all the terms to describe the problem and rarely hear anyone nitpick about using the word "virus" to describe a trojan or worm. It's just acceptable. >> Just about all of the major anti-malware vendors have >> products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because it just >> stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this? > > We all know this, and we don't like it one bit. The fact remains that > viruses are a special case requiring more than what many antimalware > applications are equipped to handle. > It seems to anger you on some level. I don't care in the least what they call it, as long as it does the job. John
From: John Slade on 5 Aug 2010 16:40
On 8/4/2010 1:53 PM, David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> > > > >>> The term "malware" is generic. >>> The term "virus" is quite specific. > > > > | "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term. Why do > | you think they call the software used to clean trojans and > | worms, "Anti-Virus" software? I'm sure you don't think that they > | only clean viruses and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a > | matter of semantics. Just about all of the major anti-malware > | vendors have products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because > | it just stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this? > > Sorry John - No. Well it's time you learned. John |