When is a virus not a virus?

Well, in my opinion never...a virus is a virus is a virus. However...

Quote:

---

The FriendGreetings electronic greeting card has all the hallmarks of a mass-mailing computer virus.

The e-mail misleads a victim into downloading an application--ostensibly to view a Web card--then sends itself to every e-mail address in the victim's Outlook contacts file. At least a few systems administrators have complained in Usenet postings that the mass-mailing e-card was to blame for swamping their network.

Yet the creators--Permissioned Media, a company apparently based in Panama--will be hard to prosecute: The viral card is protected by a license agreement that tricks unsuspecting users into clicking "Yes" and consenting to have the program send itself to all their e-mail contacts.

---

You can read the entire article here.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it uses what I already consider to be a nefarious device, the "EULA", to make its payload "legal" just makes it that much more despicable. Just another example of why you *HAVE* to read the fine print on everything these days. Be careful when you click!!!

a virus is any program with unwanted affects...

? am i wrong ?

yes you are tampa, a Virus is any computer program that can replicate itself and can: cause damage, delete things, or display political messages, etc etc, (sorry for the short post, and yea i know theres a lil more to it but im just waking up).

I don't think replication is necessary to define a virus, but I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!). Wouldn't the replication imply that it is actually a worm, and not just a virus?

well you could be right though too :)
from what iv read though they usually replicate themselves, i dont actually say its good to create them but then again the people that do keep anti virus people in business

Just me personally here...a virus is any piece of malicious code that uses subterfuge (posing as a .jpg, etc) to gain entry to a system, and/or create a security breach and/or use that system in order to propagate.

LOL... job security at it's finest! Luckily (hopefully) the virus writers aren't employed by antivirus companies, otherwise it might be a little like all the fires we've had set this year by park rangers, CDF trainees, etc.

I think that most viruses these days do replicate themselves, putting them in the worm class. Most people (ie the media) just lump everything together as "viruses" so they can have one "hot" word to use in newscasts.

How a virus gets on the system can vary widely, thus it's hard to define. A virus can only act on a local machine (or network path, I guess, without propogation). The moment it propgates itself, however, I think it should be called a worm. Viruses and worms can both pose as something else, they can both cause damage and perform unwanted actions, but the distinguishing factor is the propogation.

Found this definition on the web HERE

Quote:

---

From my research I've discovered that there isn't an agreed upon definition for a virus. Everyone seems to have his own definition for viruses, however, all definitions agree on one point which will be the basis for the following definition:

A computer virus is a program that is self-replicating (copies itself).
Many people believe that any program that does something malicious to a computing system is a virus. This isn't true unless that program can reproduce itself. Computer viruses can cause the loss or change of programs or data. Viruses can spread from one program to another and from system to system.

When the code of a virus is executed, it spreads itself to other programs. A typical computer virus does two things. First, it copies itself into previously uninfected programs. Second, it executes other instructions that the virus creator has included in it. Some viruses don't have any harmful instructions at all. Instead, they cause damage by replicating and taking up disk space.

---

As stated there, an agreed upon definition does not appear to exist and I am not sure it ever will.

Cheers:

hehe... I'll agree that we'll never all agree :-) Here the def from dictionary.com:

virus

n. [from the obvious analogy with biological viruses, via SF] A cracker program that searches out other programs and `infects' them by embedding a copy of itself in them, so that they become Trojan horses. When these programs are executed, the embedded virus is executed too, thus propagating the `infection'. This normally happens invisibly to the user. Unlike a worm, a virus cannot infect other computers without assistance. It is propagated by vectors such as humans trading programs with their friends (see SEX). The virus may do nothing but propagate itself and then allow the program to run normally. Usually, however, after propagating silently for a while, it starts doing things like writing cute messages on the terminal or playing strange tricks with the display (some viruses include nice display hacks). Many nasty viruses, written by particularly perversely minded crackers, do irreversible damage, like nuking all the user's files.
Source: The Jargon File - http://www.jargon.org

Quote:

---

a virus is any program with unwanted affects...

? am i wrong ?

---

Almost every program has unwanted affects, they are called bugs..

Unless I am mistaken, virus programs were originally given that name because they emulate the behavior of viral microorganisms. They infect a living thing, change its DNA(programming?) and trick it into replicating itself. they spread to other cells and do the same, the immune system has to destroy the host cell to destroy the virus. this is why it makes you sick. So to me, virus programs would be programs that spread, replicate, alter programming, and destroy data... Many programs that have undesired effects have been labeled viruses (by those ignorant to their actual function) so, as you can imagine, the definition has broadened quite a bit. That greeting cards sound a bit more like a worm designed for DDoS, only the packets being sent are actual tangible data. That, and worms generally don't broadcast their presence to your dumb ass, and certainly don't bind you to a licensing agreement.

Maybe they can replicate, as in a medical virus, but only within the host. The virus does not have the inherent capability (like a computer worm does) to spread to a new host.

Just my opinion though... Can't believe I'm this interested in this topic... they're all bad!

But a Virus can spread to a new host, it's low-tech, but it can spread. A person can transmit an infected file to another user, via infected storage media. A disk from one machine to another(sneaker net), in fact it could spread rapidly depending on the file that is being passed around.


Cheers:

Quote:

---

Maybe they can replicate, as in a medical virus, but only within the host. The virus does not have the inherent capability (like a computer worm does) to spread to a new host.

---

oh, ya, thats why AIDS, Influenza, smallpox, and the common cold are not at all contagious, right? HEY, GREAT NEWS, EVERYBODY!!!! NO MORE CONDOMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't say that. I said the virus isn't INHERENTLY cabaple of replicating. OF COURSE any human interaction can spread a virus, and in the same manner somebody can transfer a virus to another machine via some sort of storage media. But realize that human interaction was involved. Somebody had to do something to spread the virus. A human transferred it, the virus didn't just jump over. For that reason it is still a virus. If it can replicate to another host on its own it is a worm.

IMHO, a Virus is a piece of malicious software made to replicate itself and cause a form of distruction or unwanted effects with the intent thereof. It can be used (like allenb1963 said) to gain entry to a system or to let the attacker into the system again, but overall it's intent is to cause damage to the system.

Oh, and Virii can spread, but not on it's own correct? Unless the user sends it multiple times to multiple people, it can't spread. When a virus start's spreading on it's own, it becomes a worm, correct? I'm not entirely sure, so if someone can fill me in, Thanks!

some medical viruses are airborne, which is a direct metaphor for routine network traffic responsible for virus proliferation. regular inbibing of usually harmless, yet essential matter, which the virus takes advantage of to spread. you dont have to do anything to get the flu. except breath. you dont have anything to catch a computer virus, just regular network traffic.

And as I said earlier, I do think a virus could cause harm to machines on a network without actually replicating. In that scenario I would still consider it to be just a virus. But if that virus spreads across the network it would be a worm.

Again I reference dictionary.com:

worm

<networking, security> (From "Tapeworm" in John Brunner's novel "The Shockwave Rider", via XEROX PARC) A program that propagates itself over a network, reproducing itself as it goes. Compare virus - http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virus

Nowadays the term has negative connotations, as it is assumed that only crackers write worms.


Personally, I wouldn't compare a person breathing to network traffic. A physical virus may be contagious, but the other person has to breathe in or contact the virus in order to catch it. In the same way, a computer has to accept some sort of media or network traffic to accept it. A standalone computer is immune to worms unless someone physically installs one.

Are all worms viruses... yes.
Are all viruses worms... no.

I think in all this back and forth we've lost sight of what I originally said. A virus CAN spread, but I'd call it a worm at that point. Does that mean it's not a virus? No.

Bottom line is that I just don't think that the spreading should be part of the definition of virus. All viruses do not spread. Spreading CAN be a part of the definition of worm.

I'm Wondering then what would a Program, placed on a network remotley, without authorization, that continually sends specified classified data to the Designer But is Essentially invisible and does not replicate But Has A.I. Qualities to evade detection be Called??

Just Curious

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by jedgren
I'm Wondering then what would a Program, placed on a network remotley, without authorization, that continually sends specified classified data to the Designer But is Essentially invisible and does not replicate But Has A.I. Qualities to evade detection be Called??

Just Curious

---

I believe these programs would be classified as Trojans or Backdoor's.


Cheers:

Cool Thanks..

I thought virus was something that made copies of it and you had to run another program for it to work. But on the other hand worms can do it themselves right? Or am i lost?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hackerdan
I thought virus was something that made copies of it and you had to run another program for it to work. But on the other hand worms can do it themselves right? Or am i lost?

---

Nope, that's my basic understanding.

I think I've put in more than my two cents woth on this one, and frankly, I don't have much to spare! It's just semantics anyway, but thanks all for the input. On to bigger and better things!

OK...we all agree that a virus has no real "set" definition. And I dare suggest that a worm is merely a virus that is a bit higher on the evolutionary ladder than its less dexterious cousins. But I have to ask you guys....am I the only one who sees a dangerous precedent resulting from this new trend? Seriously...using a EULA to make the introduction and propagation of a virus LEGAL is scary if it manages to stand up in court.

It is scary, but I think the lesson to be learned is to actually read the EULA instead of just clicking yes. Unfortunately all the people who have my email address that won't read this will end up sending it to me. Doesn't sound fair, but unfortunately it does sound legal. It is scary. What happened after clicking Yes on the EULA? What I'm trying to find out is how was the program run?