Talk:Computer virus

Note: revisions of this article between June 28 and September 11, 2002 are at Virus (computing).

Confusing Platform Naming

Recent edits on this page added more confusion. Now the first Apple II virus (Elk Cloner) is attributed as the first "PC virus". It wasn't a PC virus, it was an Apple II virus.

If we want to credit Elk Cloner with a more appropriate description, it probably would be first microcomputer virus or first home computer virus.

Brain was the first PC virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.149.235 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Operating System Reinstallation blatantly incorrect statement

Hello all... Under the section about operating system reinstallation there is currently a sentance "Restoring from an image is much faster, totally safe, and restores the exact configuration to the state it was in when the image was made, with no further trouble". This is blatantly wrong. Restoring from an image can be slower or faster depending on factors like image location, network traffic, size of image vs size of clean operating system, etc... It is not totally safe because the hard drive is erased, and an error during the restore process will leave your computer in an unusable state. Errors include network interruption, image corruption, and so on. And saying that it restores the exact configuration to the state it was in is accurate, but trouble can exist, for example if the image is old and many updates exist, or if network configuration has changed, or if you have purchased new software which will require licence keys to be re-entered.

The statement is so blatantly wrong, and yet the article is protected and it cannot be edited. At the very least this misleading sentence should be immediately removed, until a new comparison between images and OS re-installation can be prepared using properly referenced research.

Regards, Fabs 115.64.159.41 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry you couldn't fix the problem directly, due to this article being semiprotected in response to long-term vandalism. I've removed the sentence. You're welcome to suggest any other changes, or you could register an account and after four days you'd be able to edit this article yourself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

bacteria

i suggest a section on viruses that do not need a host file. (that work more like bacteria than a virus.) Jake1993811 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are talking about. MANY viruses do not use a host file- such as the boot sector viruses, that subvert the code in the boot or partition sector of a disk. Others subvert the directory or FAT rather than alter the "infected" file in any way. These are certainly viruses. There are also a lot of other malware programs of various kinds that are certainly not viruses. We don't have a section for them because this wikipedia entry is about viruses, not other things. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving- Why?

I notice that some older discussions in talk have been archived recently, and this happens fairly often. I don't understand the purpose of this. The issues that arise in here tend to be reintroduced as soon as the previous threads thrashing them out have disappeared, particularly as popular misapprehensions adhere to this topic like limpets. I tire of the repeated efforts required to debunk the same old false notions again and again, just because the last discussion of them has been moved out of sight. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are described at Help:Archiving a talk page. Just disabling archiving probably wouldn't stop rehashes as many people won't check past discussions. It would be more useful to create a {{FAQ}}, like what's at Talk:Evolution or Talk:HIV, though that takes a bit of time. You can also change the parameters of auto-archiving by editing the ​{{User:MiszaBot/config}}​ section at the top of this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis-translation(s) from the German

In the Academic Work section, the paper by Veith Risak "Selbstreproduzierende Automaten mit minimaler Informationsübertragung" should be tranlsated as "Self-reproducing Automata with Minimal Information Transfer" (not "exchange"). Übertragung is transfer or transmission; "exchange" implies a 2-way flow which is not what's meant, I don't think.

In the following paragraph, Jürgen Kraus' thesis "Selbstreproduktion bei Programmen" - should this be translated as "Self-reproduction in Programming"? The plural of Programm is Programme so is Programmen the activity of programming? Anyway, "diplom" is not correct! - the English word for the German Diplom is diploma.

Cheers! EqualMusic (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lacks accuracy

The first computer code whose purpose was either hidden or malicious originated on college campuses in the form of practical jokes. Reference to John von Neumann have no relationship other than the fact that a virus is computer code. So reference should be removed.

The name is credited to Len Adleman in this paper authored by Fred Cohen: ( http://all.net/books/virus/part5.html ) and the concept is explained in sufficient detail that, today's script kiddies are incapable of understanding it. Fred Cohen's dissertation is on his site, which is here: http://all.net/. --Kernel.package (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.82.150 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Found the URL: http://all.net/books/Dissertation.pdf -- Kernel.package (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.82.150 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Code whose "purpose was either hidden or malicious" is not the definition of a virus. Viruses replicate. Any malicious or damaging aspect is extraneous to the virus aspect. Lots of malware is hidded or malicious but lacks the replication aspect, so is not a virus. I am not sure what your point re: von Neumann is. Are you saying he was only associated with pranks that did not meet the definition of viruses? TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add the folowing to Academic Results section

One of the few solid theoretical results in the study of computer viruses is Cohen's 1987 demonstration that there is no algorithm that can perfectly detect all possible viruses. (Copy/Paste from Fred Cohen.)

http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/SciPapers/VB2000DC.htm An Undetectable Computer Virus (academic paper).

Academic work hosted on research[.]ibm should be viewed as a very reliable source (my opinion).

Here on wikipedia exists an article which contains the proof (or some sketch of it) but I can't recall it and I was not able to find it.

I think it's said such a fundamental result is not included. But never is too late.

I also made edits on the Antivirus software article. The information I included is correct (my opinion) but I'm not very familiar with editing references. Please, review my edits,improve them and correct the mistakes.

My edits were corrected on Antivirus software but they are still lacking rigor. Sorry for crossposting but I feel the two articles are strongly related.

79.119.11.171 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For a better distinction between Malware and Computer Virus, somehow the page Compression virus should be included in the article. 79.113.46.76 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As no one reacted, I signed in and made the edits but, still, I couldn't find the corresponding Wikipedia article. Mv Cristi (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I also included the Compression virus example. Please, help clarify if it is just a theoretical example or it was also implemented in practice. Cruncher may be an example, but I do not know if it is benevolent. Anallise references on Compression virus. 79.113.46.76 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Antivirus experts don't accept the validity of the concept of a benevolent virus. Any benevolent function can be implemented without involving a virus. Any virus will make unauthorised changes to a computer, which is undesirable even if no damage is done or intended. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)