Win32/RAMNIT.A Anyone?
in [Viruses]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:46 "John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:oaF6o.1247$1v3.814(a)newsfe20.iad... > On 8/4/2010 2:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >> "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:G1j6o.53362$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. Being wrong is quite common also. >>> 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 don't usually bother to correct non-professionals, although I do mention that they are in error when they call non-replicators viruses. In your case, being a "professional" you should know better. That you refuse to accept the facts is just your personality getting in the way of your professionalism. > 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. Not really, it angers me when they call viruses malware - but that's another story that you would not be interested in. > I don't care in the least what they call it, as long as it does the > job. What job? If you use an antimalware application to remove viruses, you can be giving a still infested machine back to your customer. I know that you don't care, and it is alright with me if you insist on continuing to be wrong, but calling yourself a professional is over the top. I won't bother to help you to understand the importance of the difference anymore since you refuse to learn.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:51 "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:l6G6o.163309$iL.123754(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote: > [...] >> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a >> "virus" does not make it >> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please >> do NOT call yourself >> a "professional." >> >> > > > Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use > terminology in their professional lives, words will escape into the > wild, and then all bets are off. That's true, and it is worth mentioning to people when they misuse terminology. It is not really worthwhile to *insist* that the masses use terms correctly. ....but a professional should be professional. > It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage, > "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a > professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of > communication is "Adapt to your audience." I do, and the average Joe may or may not even cause me to just mention that there *is* a difference. A professional should be more receptive to gaining knowledge.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:56 "John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:ElF6o.53526$dx7.52083(a)newsfe21.iad... > On 8/4/2010 2:48 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >> "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:J3j6o.48696$3%3.27633(a)newsfe23.iad... >> >> [...] >> >>> I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do >>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them >>> called "Anti-Virus" software? >> >> Yes, but that is beside the point. > > No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to > just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go > around correcting everyone. ....and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I suppose. Talk about anal.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 21:02 "John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:0oF6o.53527$dx7.4854(a)newsfe21.iad... > On 8/4/2010 4:29 PM, RJK wrote: >> ...same old hair being split again an again :-) >> >> ...when someone dumps a system box in my lap, or pleads down the >> 'phone, he >> or she often suspects that "...there's a virus in it." >> >> :-) >> >> regards, Richard >> >> > > > LOL. The same thing happens to me. Do you think every time a > customer does that I tell them, "It's not a virus! It's a trojan!" It's not worth it. They don't care, and might not even be capable of understanding the difference. > I'll tell them eventually what the malware was that caused the problem > but I'll never be condescending to them like some other > "professionals" out there. That's a good idea, it doesn't pay to alienate customers.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 21:30
"John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Z1F6o.145$RZ1.109(a)newsfe24.iad... > 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. It's not *right*, but whatcha gonna do - dinner table conversation is different than technical conversation. > Also professionals who actually make software that remove malware > often called their products anti-virus software. Only if they did indeed target viruses. If they couldn't detect at least most existing viruses, they would be laughed out of business. Maybe you would be so kind as to back that claim up with an example? To the best of my knowledge, anti-malware programs that now incorporate an antivirus engine don't bother to change the name to reflect that change. Ad-Aware and The Cleaner have added the ability to detect viruses to their programs IIRC even MBAM has detection for some viruses. Every *AV* program I can think of not only *detect* and *identify* viruses, but also can *remove* them (using a VDL). Some years ago they started to try to cover non-replicating malware as well (might as well, they're already hooked into the system anyway). It's wrongheaded in a way, there are better ways to avoid most non-replicators (the exception being software exploit based malware). It is the worms and viruses that get around otherwise best practices. |