Talk:Computer virus

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LBJJames (article contribs).

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

Outdated information

"Computer viruses currently cause billions of dollars' worth of economic damage each year,[15] due to causing system failure, wasting computer resources, corrupting data, increasing maintenance costs, etc. In response, free, open-source antivirus tools have been developed, and an industry of antivirus software has cropped up, selling or freely distributing virus protection to users of various operating systems.[16] As of 2005, even though no currently existing antivirus software was able to uncover all computer viruses (especially new ones), computer security researchers are actively searching for new ways to enable antivirus solutions to more effectively detect emerging viruses, before they have already become widely distributed.[17]"

This entire paragraph cites sources from the early to mid 00's. I don't dare remove it myself, but should it really be included? The internet has changed *a lot* since 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.74.179 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Vulnerability of different operating systems" section also needs to be updated. The section gives the impression that the only virus affecting Unix/Linux is a research project from 1997, which has not been the case for a while. Cheloniophile (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

BRAIN Virus

Second reference for BRAIN Virus. This video is in English. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnedOWfPKT0

Mac virus found in the wild

This sentence is no longer accurate and should be deleted or changed.

"There are no known viruses that have spread "in the wild" for Mac OS X."

ABC report on the Flashback virus

References

You know what I want to proceed with brain virus mac ones Shyam Narayan Nayak (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can’t we have computers that won’t get viruses?

This article ought to explain why computers are vulnerable to viruses, and what useful capabilities a computer would necessarily lack if it were designed so as to be invulnerable to viruses. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the computer could not be updated, once delivered. Nor could it be updated from a thumb drive, or other hard media. Computer would still need some kind of firewall that examined new data. Downloads with .exe or .com suffixes would be flagged/rejected, even if innocuous. Only .html modules (web) could be downloaded. Pretty limited use. Nothing wrong mentioning this somewhere. There are other threats, so there might be a separate article. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

encrypted files image

I've removed this image again: file:Computer Virus rename the files randomly for the names and extensions.jpg.png as it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion: Neither the edit summary nor article itself say which virus has caused this activity, and the actual image file summary doesn't include the above information either. Additionally much of the information in the file is non-English, which although doesn't automatically exclude it, doesn't count in its favour either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Move

To me, it seems that Virus (computing) or Virus (computer security) would be a more appropriate title. --99.198.29.130 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Legality

I didn’t notice anything about legality, here. Should be something that describes statues against this, torts, etc. probably separate article. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Computer Viruses in Art section?

An editor has inserted a "Computer Viruses in Art" section (and commented "Don't touch the article"). Notwithstanding Wikipedia's stated policy that no one person "owns" anything (see WP:OWNER), I'm not at all sure that such a section belongs in a technical article. Per WP:BRD, I reverted the addition and am bringing it here to discuss. What does the community think about this? Thanks, everyone! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia can be used to provide information that is relevant to the topic and backed by a story. And I think that adding a section "Computer viruses in art" is not only appropriate, but also necessary, its very interesting. --Art of Odessa (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As you say, "Relevant to the topic". pretty paintings they may be, but they have no relevance or connection with subject of the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• IdreamofJeanie What do they relate to? They are made on the basis of this theme. Obviously it’s just the right place for a subsection. Do you disagree?" --Art of Odessa (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll answer that, too: I disagree. The appropriate place for these pictures (artists' renditions of his/her visualizations of computer viruses) is within a page on Computer Art (possibly in a section called "Artistic Representations of Computer Malware"). I would not insist on putting source code or other technical information related to computer viruses within that paragraph, because it doesn't belong there; likewise, I don't believe art belongs in a technical article like this one. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m very sorry that you don’t understand that everything is interconnected and you perceive the world so one-sided ... You apparently have a very boring life. I insist that this topic should be supplemented with a subsection, this is an existing fact. --Art of Odessa (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Will you please stop insulting other Wikipedia user/editors? Exhibiting bellicose behavior doesn't help your case, and engaging in ad hominem attacks against other Wikipedia editors isn't a good thing to do (see WP:NPA). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Art of Odessa What they actually relate to does not matter here. They have no link with the subject apart from their name. If I paint a flower, and then call it "Kiev/Kyiv" would it belong on the Kiev article? The section bears as much validity as my hypothetical painting. IdreamofJeanie (talk)

IdreamofJeanie These viruses are also created based on the code of each virus. --Art of Odessa (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then, as I mentioned before, they should be included in an article on Computer Art. I think it's extremely interesting the artwork was created from malware source code, but that doesn't belong in a technical article about said malware. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)