Talk:Computer worm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Malware, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Malware. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
Citation This page was cited by Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts |
Contents |
[edit] Morris worm
According to several sources, Morris was a Cornell grad student at the time. Can this be debunked or confirmed?
What are your sources? Could you provide them?
Is Morris the guy who "took down the Internet"? (my dad's words)
- See Morris worm Nixdorf 06:58, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] What is a worm or virus?
Are things like Klez email worms, or email viruses? I thought that a computer worm didn't attach itself to anything, including email messages, and not limited to executables. I also thought that a property of computer worms was that they could spread without any human intervention, wheras viruses cannot; spreading email infections usually requires a user to open an attachment, or at least to select a message for viewing, and that seems more like a virus than a worm. -- Khym Chanur
- This varies with whom you ask. The cathegories computer worm and computer virus are overlapped, there is a grey area between. Nixdorf 06:58, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Useful page
Looking for more information about a strange e-mail I got, I found a link to this page from http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Tech&cat=Computer_Viruses_and_Worms . Κσυπ Cyp 21:52, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Genetic code in worms?
Genetic code that evolves, but keeps the algorithm intact (a.k.a. polymorphic code) is used by some worms that tries to hide their presence.. I can really feel and SEE how the academic world is left behind, blind. That kind of stuff has been around for YEARS you know :P!!! "It MIGHT"?!?!? Doh. // Noone
- There's more to genetic algorithm than change. In general, genetic algorithms use three "operators" to drive "evolution": "selection", "mutation", and "recombination", with generatlly selection being considered the most fundamental. I can see how "mutation" can be defined in this sense (random changes do qualify all right), but I definitely can't see recombination and, more importantly, I don't yet see if there's any selection process at work. If we can argue that certain random "mutations" are more viable and thus spread better then others this might qualify as GA but not otherwise, IMHO. Any refelctions?
-
- The bit in the article about 'genetic code' is indeed plain wrong - genetic algorithms have nothing to do with polymorphic code. - David Gerard 12:08, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- It seems that you people are right :| Hum.. But I dont see how that (genetic algorithms) could be a benefit to the worm? Perhaps I am just stupid. Noone
-
[edit] Good worms?
"It should be pointed out that worms are not always bad, and in fact can be occasionally useful, for instance they could be used to upgrade software on a very large privately run network."
Unless someone can come up with an actual example to put in the article (I can think of none), this is mere speculation and shouldn't really be in the article. - David Gerard 12:32, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
- I recall there was a worm (or whatever you call it) that exploited one of the RPC vulnerabilities of Windows systems (I'd guess it should have been either MS03-026 or MS03-039) but instead of doing harm it installed the official Microsoft patch eliminating the vulnerability. I'll try to dig up some sort of evidence but maybe someone has it readily available? --jtg 10:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
- There was a worm that went around trying to be a 'good' worm in the manner you describe, using the RPC vulnerability to remove the other worm and then close the hole. However, that worm caused its own bucket of trouble in the process. I'll comment out the claim in the article for now, pending a good example. - David Gerard 11:44, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I tried to add a balanced comment on the topic, see the main page. --jtg 12:59, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Good one! - David Gerard 13:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Spammer theory
I'll see what I can find in evidence for the spammer theory of worm creation, something more substantial than "security experts agree." A lot of spam is known to be sent from home PCs rather than conventional open relays (a server with an SMTP server configured open), and a worm-installed backdoor is the presumed mechanism. Hmm ... - David Gerard 13:58, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Found one! http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60747,00.html No doubt there's more. Having a single source, I've named the opining experts in question - Steve Linford from the antispammer side, Joe Stewart from the security side. That sentence is clumsy, but could reasonably be removed with more sources - David Gerard 14:17, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
- And another: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/68810/1/.html - names removed from sentence. - David Gerard 14:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
