![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can any person that visits this page who has had recent contact with the writing of such software please tell me your motivations behind this and why???. 88.104.147.21 ( talk) 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is used in the article to give a definition of computer virus. Although I think it's pretty reasonable, I don't think that this definition is completely correct. The problem, in my opinion, is the word attaching. Some viruses do not attach their code to a host program, but simply overwrite executable files (e.g. the Trivial family on the DOS platform, some bootsector-viruses). Other viruses do not write to program files of software at all, but 'infect' executable files by manipulating non-executable structures (e.g. FAT-Infectors such as Dir-II, Companion viruses in MS-DOS).
So, I think it would be more accurate to say that "A computer virus spreads by means of hosts, which typically are executable files that are a part of legitimate software. Some viruses use other types of hosts: for example, macro viruses attach themselves to documents and bootsector viruses use boot sectors of computer media. Normally, a virus attaches itself to other software in a way that ensures the virus is executed first. " Sietse 21:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On November 1, it seemed as if the Malware article was reorganized. I have reverted the article to the previous organization. Please add additional sections to the article for your contributions. The structure as it is right now is fine the way it is. Hfguide 13:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Malware (a portmanteau of "malicious software")... this is not. According to [1] (in dictionary.com [2]), Mal in english is a prefix meaning Bad. Malicious is not the source. I suggest changing it.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/malware.asp Earliest Citation: Computer viruses that attack IBM PCs and compatibles are nearing a milestone of sorts. Within the next few months, the list of viruses will top 1,000, according to Klaus Brunnstein, a noted German computer virus expert. He has published a list of known malicious software for MS-DOS systems that includes 979 viruses and 19 trojans. In all, there are 998 pieces of "malware," Brunnstein said. —"Inside lines," ComputerWorld, July 29, 1991
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=malware&r=66 software, such as viruses, intended to damage or disable a computer system; short for malicious software; also written mal-ware Etymology: 1998-2003 Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malware Blend of malicious and software
http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=malware http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/M/malware.html http://whatis.techtarget.com/wsearchResults/1,290214,sid9,00.html?query=malware http://www.geocities.com/ikind_babel/babel/babel.html#M -- Espoo 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Referring to the section "overuse of the term 'virus'", it's worse than you think. I've even seen people use "virus" to refer to accidental ill effects, such as the Y2K bug, which was called the "Y2K virus" in Finnish media.
Does Phising fall under this?-- Jondel 08:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've heard of Directory Harvest Attacks, but I'm not sure where they should go. Does it belong in Malware, or somewhere else? KellyCoinGuy 19:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC).
The discussion on "types of malware" can be simplified by classing first between how the malware is spread (virus, worm, trojan, direct placement by someone with access to the hardware) and what is its effect (destruction of files, spyware, adware, key capturing, spam server and so on.) I propose such a classification. Opinions?
I don't think this is a bad idea, but it certainly wouldn't 'simplify' any discussion of malware. It would probably make it a more precise discussion, but not a simpler one. Tpstigers 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the categories of malware given here are based pretty much on the way people use the terms. (Though it would be worth noting that "virus" has pretty much come to include "worm" for most users.) Since the category of "malware" is defined based on the intention of the creator (malicious software) rather than on any technical detail of the software, it would seem reasonable to keep the "traditional" categories somehow.
The thing is, categories are only useful insofar as they express distinctions that are useful to speakers and readers. One can't simply define words once, ignore the changes of history, and then call people "wrong" for using the word "virus" to refer to a network-spreading infection. Word usages change: today, as far as I can tell, Windows technicians talk about viruses and network security people talk about worms. :)
(One problem is that the trade-rag press love to come up with new words to express trivial distinctions and pass them off as actual technical terms ... or, equivalently, to harp on minor historical distinctions in order to sound more precise. I don't give trade-rag neologisms any status; technical terms have to come from technical work, not from hype.) -- FOo 05:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
This claim seems odd:
Is it true? Source? - Paul 15:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not true. It's a comment by zottmann. How would the user be caught? Oh, the new line of code that sends the amazon affiliate id back to the cow site? OK, again, the user per se will be caught how? Hence my comment in the post-vandalism restored section 'protect privacy.. must violate the license" - me 10:13, 19 December 2005 (PST)
I think there was some confusion regarding URL Injection. I remember this section from an earlier version. It seemed to be vaguely referring to what is known as a "browser hijacker" -- that is, a program that takes over a person's browser settings and redirects it to another web site. A browser hijacker can do *more* than just redirect to a page (it can also reset someone's home page and add bookmarks). However, the point is that A) I don't think that "stealware" is what this section was about initially. B) If it was, then it might really fall under the larger umbrella of "Browser Hijacking." Hfguide 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
URL injection was no accident. It apptly describe's what Carlo's firefox extension does. It itself is not entirely malware, but only in part, hence the clarifing category, which incidentally is now an accepted use of the phrase hence my comment "(see: google results)". NOT giving the user the power to disable the affiliate code injection (hence URL injection) renders in it part malware. Its installation is not surreptitious but its revenue generating powers are. Contrary to claims by the extension author this power is NOT made clear to the average user: most users never dig into the about menu, and there's no on-install or post-install explanation of the affiliate injection notice which is not technically challenging as earlier versions of Text Zoom extension (different author) once did. Browser Hijacking is a completely different beast and "Better"Search is not of them. Nor is "Better"Seach really StealWare. Its whole intent is not theft, so it properly ought not be in that category. Again, this is why URL injection is the perfect category. It describes essentially the mal-nature of the firefox extension. URLwatcher02 10:26 19 December 2005 (PST)
It is not necessary to "take control" of a machine to install a rootkit; by "take control" I mean have the machine do what you want it to do, even when it has been programmed to do something else - an Exploit (computer security). All that is needed is a suitable level of access, such as sufficient access to install software or mount removable media. Many consumer oriented general purpose machines - other than those running normal software such as Linux or Mac OS X run in this state all the time - all that is needed is physical access and normal use of the machine! In some cases merely operating a web browser or sending an email to a user on that machine.
The "Rootkit" section could be completely removed and replaced by a reference to the Rootkit page!
Actually, I am in broad agreement with you. My real beef is that this page ought not to define rootkit, [The page has: "A rootkit is software inserted onto a computer system after an attacker has gained control of the system", whereas it is at least arguable that defining characteristics of a rootkit are that it causes you own system to lie to you, and effectively parameterises the OS by changing how the OS behaves to various inputs; and not i) that it was inserted, or ii) that an attacker installed it, or iii) that an attacker had control of the system. More importantly, these points belong on the rootkit page not not the malware page], but refer to the Rootkit page for that definition and for fuller (and possibly more accurate) information. Also I suspect there was a thinko, you probably had in your mind: The 'Rootkit' section on the malware page should remain.
Having said that, I would argue that statements such as
belong on the rootkit page as these are characteristcs of rootkits rather than malware in general - though the first perhaps does belong here as a true and concise example of the relationship between malware and a rootkit (malware wastes your resources and may compromise your privacy, a rootkit lies to you). Finally, I am not confident that I could render the phrase "can be used in malware" into brief and accurate English, though I think that its meaning is identical to my expression: " ... in order to conceal [the presence of malware]"
I am new to wikipedia. I would have thought that adding even a few lines should not be done without considering that this may mean 'bloating' the page and actually removing duplicate (or low value) material would be better.
If I were new to Malware, I would like to read that that it is an aggregate category (a bit like ' Intellectual Property') with no definable meaning, I would like to know what kinds of software or code can be classified as Malware: Worms, Viruses, BHOs, Dialers ...; and that malware is only found in commerical software, and for that matter where there is a monopoly position in the provision of core code. Actual details of Computer_worms, Computer_viruses et cetera belong on their own pages, and perhaps some very, very simple simple information on avoiding and detecting the presence of malware
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. -- Ben.the.mole 22:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the Common Malware Enumeration (CME) spyware and adware cannot be considered malware due to their non-destructive nature. Have a look here (A3. What is "malware"?) http://cme.mitre.org/about/faqs.html . Do you guys think spyware should be included in this article? Viruswitch 01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-Spyware destroys privacy.
PJTraill 10:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) They are malware – anything intended to make a system behave contrary to its owners rightful expectations should be considered malware. That leaves the open question what one has a right to expect from ones system (DRM?), but using my system to pester or snoop on me is clearly out. As to CME, "CME defines malware as ..." doesn't mean we have to accept it, rather indicates there may be other opinions. I would go so far as to suggest this definition as preferrable to "software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system, without the owner's consent".
ALL ware is f***ing evil and destructive.
-H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 10:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this website that I would like to warn people about, how would I do that? WWW.CRACKZ.WS is a hacker front for malware DON'T GO THERE!!! Instead go here http://forums.spywareinfo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t61280.html, how would I warn on wikipedia or the public about this site? Pseudoanonymous 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
A script kiddie site. Is it any wonder that actual coders put malware into the files to infect the script kiddies who cant make/compile their own files? 68.49.72.210 04:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The page originally stated:
This is easy to read in a way that suggests that one cannot construct software that is recognizably free of viruses. If by a virus, we mean code that can access unintended machine resources, this is clearly false. Code implemented on top of a virtual machine whose operations access only limited resources can itself access only limited resources. I changed this to a slightly more awkward, but substantially more clear form:
I also added:
I think that this addition is important, because this mistake has, in fact, often been made, and as a consequence has discouraged work that could help to reduce the virus problem in the real world. Harold f 07:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to have been at some point a bit of an etymology war going on in the opening paragraph. I wrote it to reflect both points of view (to really settle this, someone ought to track down the first known use of the term, and figure it out from there, a la OED--though if we don't, I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually, stuffy old coots though they are). I also removed the French language segue for offenses against punctuation and necessity. I think most English readers are probably aware of the meaning of the prefix mal- and can click on the link if they're not. Also, French is a fairly arbitrary choice; the prefix is common to all Romance languages, and standard practice is to go back to the Latin. Durito 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has a few POV problems. Words like "unfortunately" do not belong in an encyclopedia article. There are also citations needed for some claims in this article that seem pretty far fetched. 68.43.121.42 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole "Fighting Malware" section needs citations from reputable sources and needs to be rewritten to present only facts. Wikipedia is not an instructional guide, and encyclopedia article doesn't tell users what they "should" or "should not" do. 68.43.121.42 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
68.43.121.42 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nagle, "badware" is not only not in any standard dictionary but also not in any of the slang or the many computer dictionaries normally listed at www.onelook.com. (Compare http://www.onelook.com/?loc=bm3&w=virus ) In fact, the only reference found by Onelook is Wikipedia. That means it's an extremely rare word, which is confirmed by the search http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22badware%22&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=dictionary+glossary+words+terms+lexicon&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
which produces only very few glossary results that can (almost) be taken seriously such as the following:
This seems to indicate that "badware" is at most jargon and only of a very small group of people. The only serious use of the word i could find was at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48490.html and http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126928-c,aol/article.html which seems to indicate that it's a very new word, perhaps even originally the name of the website mentioned in both articles http://www.stopbadware.org
Especially in light of this situation, i find it quite amusing that you added this very rare word while removing the information that most normal computer users never use the word "malware" and instead use "virus" as the generic term. This change was especially uncalled for because you say my edit was "uncited". A quick look in some general dictionaries would have shown you that it's unnecessary to provide a source. This is especially true since i'm describing a situation that anyone who is in contact with normal people knows to be true. In fact, although some dictionaries do give the "geeky" i.e. professionally correct description of "computer virus", these are actually prescriptionist and therefore incorrect according to the guidelines of these same dictionaries. You seem to be a computer professional with very little contact with normal users, otherwise you'd know what more than about 90% of all computer users call "malware".
Your edit was also not good because your use of "hostile code" means nothing to most Wikipedia users. It should at the very least be "programming code" or "computer code". That is why i changed your edit
Malware is a generic term covering a variety of forms of hostile code. The term "badware" is a synonym for "malware".
of my version
However, many normal computer users are still unfamiliar with the term, and most never use it. Instead, "virus" is more commonly used in common parlance to describe all kinds of malware.
to
Malware is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile computer code. Another term used for this is "badware", but this new term was apparently coined to mean any "software that fundamentally disregards a user's choice over how his or her computer will be used." ( http://www.stopbadware.org/home/faq) In that sense, "badware" is a more general term that encompasses "malware", which then means only malicious software. In addition, many normal computer users are still unfamiliar with the term, and most never use it. Instead, "virus" is more commonly used in common parlance to describe all kinds of malware.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/virus?view=uk a piece of code surreptitiously introduced into a system in order to corrupt it or destroy data.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=virus 4 : a computer program that is usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program and that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus
http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/C0539700.html A computer program that is designed to replicate itself by copying itself into the other programs stored in a computer. It may be benign or have a negative effect, such as causing a program to operate incorrectly or corrupting a computer's memory.
And last but not least, Computer virus.
-- Espoo 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There is one thing that we could add to this page that isn't discussed at all. What about software that doesn't try to intentionally harm your computer, but the programmers weren't exactly the best in the business and so their uninstall fails. It ends up leaving parts of the program in your computer and unless you get some specific but risky software to edit the registry, you can't get it off your computer ever. This has happened to me a few times with software demos that came with magazines. 216.191.40.149 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia's recent malware attack? Its on Google News that some hackers hacked Wikipedia. -- 66.218.11.146 07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the distribution box into an HTML comment, because malwaare is a type of software, not a liscence/distribution type. -- ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we delete all links in WP to TopTenREVIEWS (once accidentally or purposely misname Anti-spyware-review.com) on the basis of http://www.castlecops.com/a5466-Don%e2%80%99t_Always_Believe_What_You_Read.html In fact, we should probably even write an article on TopTenREVIEWS. Their 2007 firewall software report even includes a "review" of Sygate, which has been discontinued... -- Espoo 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is DRM included in the links? While many don't like DRM, it is entirely "passive" (it prevents you from being doing something) in contrast to malware which is generally "Active". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.53.43.209 ( talk) 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Computers are so defective these days, i just think that malware programs should be free, i think you buy a computer and get malware, but you buy a console and do not. Why pay for something that doesnt work. Do i pay for xbox 360 updates? -no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I know the two terms are used in slightly different ways but still, I think it would make sense to have a single article as there is a very important overlap in the two notions. Pascal.Tesson 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Grayware seems like a bogus term to begin with, an attempt to classify commercially-produced and "joke" malware as something "less bad" than malware -- FOo 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought this was interesting. I don't edit Wikipedia, but if someone else find this interesting enough to add to this page, go nuts. 211.28.215.95 ( talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm proposing a merger of the new data stealing malware article with the Malware article to eliminate redundancy and forking. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the greyware part should be merged with the Nagware page
do You think so?
24.185.213.227 ( talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Malware, short for malicious software, is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's informed consent."
I am removing the term "damage." Malware is typically -not- designed to damage a computer system. That is illogical. "Damage" implies rendering a computer physically unusable. A criminal cannot make money by causing a computer to stop working. As such, it is not a typical characteristic and I am removing that word. Screen317 ( talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article misses to stress the very important point that pretty much all malware runs on Windows, and that other alternatives, especially Linux, are pretty much malware-free. Yes, it is "implied" by the article, but not said in clear, layman terms. As such the article is poor in terms of quality-of-information. What is the sue of it being precise, when it is hard to understand? when its information is, because of being obscure, mostly useless? yamaplos 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos ( talk • contribs)
Arguably a rootkit is not necessarily malware; An employer might install a rootkit to undetectably monitor, say network accesses or even keystrokes, without that monitoring being ever disabled or subverted. A publisher with pre-release content might deploy a rootkit on clearly labelled "Not for distribution" plastic (perhaps) optical disks that 'root' machines into which they are inserted, to disable standard optical hardware - turning a general purpose machine (probably on the premises of the publisher) into a playback-only one. People handling pre-release content would understand this and know not to put such contaminated disks into normal machines (or face the consequences). It like a customised OS without needing to recompile the kernel or have access to its source.
The "Rootkit" section could be completely removed and replaced by a reference to the Rootkit page!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.123.102 ( talk) 17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The article should include a section on what can be done to prevent infection with malware. One of the most basic methods is to stop logging on as "administrator" all the time. Under versions of Windows prior to Vista, it was normal for a home user to use an account with full administrator rights all the time. Vista and Windows 7 now use UAC to prevent background installs of software, but even Win 2000 / Win XP users can benefit from creating a separate low-privilege "User" account and using that all the time, and only using a higher-privileged administrative account in those rare situations where programs need to be installed or removed.
The same applies to other operating systems, though both OSX, linux, and other unix variants seem to have this fairly well sorted out: don't logon as administrator all the time.
DMahalko ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add the following, but need to find cites first. So, temporary save here for now.
Removing malware from within a running and compromised system can be extremely difficult, to impossible. Malware programmers know that people will attempt to remove the software so they take steps to make removal as hard as possible.
In many cases the surest and most effective way to scan for and remove malware and viruses is to not run the infected system at all, so that the malware is unable to actively combat the removal process. There are generally two ways to do this:
Often it is not simply a matter of removing the known malware files. While running on the system, the malware may have changed a wide range of system configuration settings that will continue to cause malfunctions, may have broken any installed security software, and may both leave the system less secure than it was before, as well as leaving behind seed code intended to attempt to trigger a re-infection again using the Internet, at a later time.
In many cases the only way to find out what specific damage malware does is for the software to be run in a controlled environment such as a virtual machine, or in a regular system with disk snapshotting enabled, and then monitoring what changes it makes to the system. This information is then used to create a repair script that is used by anti-malware software to restore an infected system's configuration to its pre-infection state.
DMahalko ( talk) 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has a lot of good content - quite a bit actually! There is so much it seems like it could really benefit from being broken into sub-pages for History of malware, or Academic research, or other sections that are almost an article in length in their own right. Maybe there could be a paragraph or two that is then continued with additional info on another page? Right now it just seems to me that the page is a little hard to navigate and might be daunting for a reader who is not familiar with the topics discussed in the Malware article. PatrickCarbone ( talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, at the bottom of the article it shows a HTML element. What if a hijacker was looking for a quicker way to hijack and they looked there?
98.28.183.68 ( talk) 02:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This article presents the usual terms, "Trojan horses", "viruses", "worms"! Certainly useful! But would it be possible to make it more concrete/technical! Or if this is out-of-scope for an encyclopaedic article, a reference to such a more technical/detailed article of high quality.
How and when is the execution of the "malware" started? By a modified boot-sector starting "malware" instead of the operating system. By the modification of the list of "services/daemons" the operating system starts. For Windows, possibly an entry in "Autoexec"?
At least for one special example! One gets the impression that in this field it is more about the authors copying each other than to come with hard facts! In other words, the rumours are flourishing! To the benefit of firms providing security software! Searching with Google one finds a lot of adverts for such software but not much useful information!
Stamcose ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Logically, it should be two stages
-The malicious code is written to the victim's disc
-Some configuration files are modified in such a way that the operting system automatically transfers the control to the malicious software after power-up
Explain for at least one example!
Stamcose ( talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Imho it should be noted, that most anti-malware programs do not only consider software possibly unwanted by the user as PUPs, but also software unwanted by content owners (e.g. filesharing-prograes, Keygens and software like AnyDVD or CloneCD). -- MrBurns ( talk) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is not ready for GA as a number of sections are entirely unreferenced. A GA reviewer might also consider the article to be lacking in illustrations which should be provided "if possible" — surely true here. It is also advisable for a nominator new to an article to consult with editors who have been working on the article, if not to participate in editing and improving it until it is clear that it is ready to submit. The text appears reasonably stable and not excessively point-of-view so once citations have been supplied and checked the article should be well worth re-submitting for GA review. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why Adobe Flash is not on the spyware list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.196.122 ( talk) 02:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the section about "Known good", as it appeared to be very tangential to the main flow of the section, and when I looked into which editor added it, I strongly believe that editor has an affiliation with Nexor, and so the content could be construed as there only for self-promotion purposes. - CoLocate ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No mention in the article of any hardware-based malware - USB micro-code, BIOS, routers etc. 122.106.249.198 ( talk) 09:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
the source cited (techterms.com) does not actually say what that first sentence does. it's related, but it doesn't appear to be a good source for the text as it appears here. Colbey84 ( talk) 21:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the "mal" in malware was merely from the Latin for "bad." Lots of malware isn't necessarily malicious (it might just be poorly written and insecure, opening up security holes on computers running it), but it is all bad. Should we change this? I see that the term "badware" is referenced. I have never heard someone say badware in my life, and in my experience, most people say malware for software which is unintentionally bad.
35.2.151.60 ( talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Malware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest merging the PE infection page into the Viruses subheading under Concealment. The section would then read:
An alternative to this would be to include it into the header section under Concealment, making it read as follows:
^Above proposed 19OCT17. I made the changes outlined in the first paragraph on 21OCT17. -- Baumergrl ( talk) 17:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Added some facts and links about this type of ransomware for Android devices. Plus added some info about the new version of RAT trojan for Mac. Catwilmore ( talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"The most common evasion technique is when the malware evades analysis and detection by fingerprinting the environment when executed." I have not read the book linked, but fingerprinting would be a good way to detect the malware, NOT a good way for the malware to avoid detection. This bullet point does not seem to make sense. It should either be removed, or, if someone understands how it makes sense, then it should be edited for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.241.189 ( talk) 03:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can any person that visits this page who has had recent contact with the writing of such software please tell me your motivations behind this and why???. 88.104.147.21 ( talk) 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is used in the article to give a definition of computer virus. Although I think it's pretty reasonable, I don't think that this definition is completely correct. The problem, in my opinion, is the word attaching. Some viruses do not attach their code to a host program, but simply overwrite executable files (e.g. the Trivial family on the DOS platform, some bootsector-viruses). Other viruses do not write to program files of software at all, but 'infect' executable files by manipulating non-executable structures (e.g. FAT-Infectors such as Dir-II, Companion viruses in MS-DOS).
So, I think it would be more accurate to say that "A computer virus spreads by means of hosts, which typically are executable files that are a part of legitimate software. Some viruses use other types of hosts: for example, macro viruses attach themselves to documents and bootsector viruses use boot sectors of computer media. Normally, a virus attaches itself to other software in a way that ensures the virus is executed first. " Sietse 21:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On November 1, it seemed as if the Malware article was reorganized. I have reverted the article to the previous organization. Please add additional sections to the article for your contributions. The structure as it is right now is fine the way it is. Hfguide 13:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Malware (a portmanteau of "malicious software")... this is not. According to [1] (in dictionary.com [2]), Mal in english is a prefix meaning Bad. Malicious is not the source. I suggest changing it.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/malware.asp Earliest Citation: Computer viruses that attack IBM PCs and compatibles are nearing a milestone of sorts. Within the next few months, the list of viruses will top 1,000, according to Klaus Brunnstein, a noted German computer virus expert. He has published a list of known malicious software for MS-DOS systems that includes 979 viruses and 19 trojans. In all, there are 998 pieces of "malware," Brunnstein said. —"Inside lines," ComputerWorld, July 29, 1991
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=malware&r=66 software, such as viruses, intended to damage or disable a computer system; short for malicious software; also written mal-ware Etymology: 1998-2003 Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malware Blend of malicious and software
http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=malware http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/M/malware.html http://whatis.techtarget.com/wsearchResults/1,290214,sid9,00.html?query=malware http://www.geocities.com/ikind_babel/babel/babel.html#M -- Espoo 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Referring to the section "overuse of the term 'virus'", it's worse than you think. I've even seen people use "virus" to refer to accidental ill effects, such as the Y2K bug, which was called the "Y2K virus" in Finnish media.
Does Phising fall under this?-- Jondel 08:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've heard of Directory Harvest Attacks, but I'm not sure where they should go. Does it belong in Malware, or somewhere else? KellyCoinGuy 19:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC).
The discussion on "types of malware" can be simplified by classing first between how the malware is spread (virus, worm, trojan, direct placement by someone with access to the hardware) and what is its effect (destruction of files, spyware, adware, key capturing, spam server and so on.) I propose such a classification. Opinions?
I don't think this is a bad idea, but it certainly wouldn't 'simplify' any discussion of malware. It would probably make it a more precise discussion, but not a simpler one. Tpstigers 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the categories of malware given here are based pretty much on the way people use the terms. (Though it would be worth noting that "virus" has pretty much come to include "worm" for most users.) Since the category of "malware" is defined based on the intention of the creator (malicious software) rather than on any technical detail of the software, it would seem reasonable to keep the "traditional" categories somehow.
The thing is, categories are only useful insofar as they express distinctions that are useful to speakers and readers. One can't simply define words once, ignore the changes of history, and then call people "wrong" for using the word "virus" to refer to a network-spreading infection. Word usages change: today, as far as I can tell, Windows technicians talk about viruses and network security people talk about worms. :)
(One problem is that the trade-rag press love to come up with new words to express trivial distinctions and pass them off as actual technical terms ... or, equivalently, to harp on minor historical distinctions in order to sound more precise. I don't give trade-rag neologisms any status; technical terms have to come from technical work, not from hype.) -- FOo 05:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
This claim seems odd:
Is it true? Source? - Paul 15:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not true. It's a comment by zottmann. How would the user be caught? Oh, the new line of code that sends the amazon affiliate id back to the cow site? OK, again, the user per se will be caught how? Hence my comment in the post-vandalism restored section 'protect privacy.. must violate the license" - me 10:13, 19 December 2005 (PST)
I think there was some confusion regarding URL Injection. I remember this section from an earlier version. It seemed to be vaguely referring to what is known as a "browser hijacker" -- that is, a program that takes over a person's browser settings and redirects it to another web site. A browser hijacker can do *more* than just redirect to a page (it can also reset someone's home page and add bookmarks). However, the point is that A) I don't think that "stealware" is what this section was about initially. B) If it was, then it might really fall under the larger umbrella of "Browser Hijacking." Hfguide 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
URL injection was no accident. It apptly describe's what Carlo's firefox extension does. It itself is not entirely malware, but only in part, hence the clarifing category, which incidentally is now an accepted use of the phrase hence my comment "(see: google results)". NOT giving the user the power to disable the affiliate code injection (hence URL injection) renders in it part malware. Its installation is not surreptitious but its revenue generating powers are. Contrary to claims by the extension author this power is NOT made clear to the average user: most users never dig into the about menu, and there's no on-install or post-install explanation of the affiliate injection notice which is not technically challenging as earlier versions of Text Zoom extension (different author) once did. Browser Hijacking is a completely different beast and "Better"Search is not of them. Nor is "Better"Seach really StealWare. Its whole intent is not theft, so it properly ought not be in that category. Again, this is why URL injection is the perfect category. It describes essentially the mal-nature of the firefox extension. URLwatcher02 10:26 19 December 2005 (PST)
It is not necessary to "take control" of a machine to install a rootkit; by "take control" I mean have the machine do what you want it to do, even when it has been programmed to do something else - an Exploit (computer security). All that is needed is a suitable level of access, such as sufficient access to install software or mount removable media. Many consumer oriented general purpose machines - other than those running normal software such as Linux or Mac OS X run in this state all the time - all that is needed is physical access and normal use of the machine! In some cases merely operating a web browser or sending an email to a user on that machine.
The "Rootkit" section could be completely removed and replaced by a reference to the Rootkit page!
Actually, I am in broad agreement with you. My real beef is that this page ought not to define rootkit, [The page has: "A rootkit is software inserted onto a computer system after an attacker has gained control of the system", whereas it is at least arguable that defining characteristics of a rootkit are that it causes you own system to lie to you, and effectively parameterises the OS by changing how the OS behaves to various inputs; and not i) that it was inserted, or ii) that an attacker installed it, or iii) that an attacker had control of the system. More importantly, these points belong on the rootkit page not not the malware page], but refer to the Rootkit page for that definition and for fuller (and possibly more accurate) information. Also I suspect there was a thinko, you probably had in your mind: The 'Rootkit' section on the malware page should remain.
Having said that, I would argue that statements such as
belong on the rootkit page as these are characteristcs of rootkits rather than malware in general - though the first perhaps does belong here as a true and concise example of the relationship between malware and a rootkit (malware wastes your resources and may compromise your privacy, a rootkit lies to you). Finally, I am not confident that I could render the phrase "can be used in malware" into brief and accurate English, though I think that its meaning is identical to my expression: " ... in order to conceal [the presence of malware]"
I am new to wikipedia. I would have thought that adding even a few lines should not be done without considering that this may mean 'bloating' the page and actually removing duplicate (or low value) material would be better.
If I were new to Malware, I would like to read that that it is an aggregate category (a bit like ' Intellectual Property') with no definable meaning, I would like to know what kinds of software or code can be classified as Malware: Worms, Viruses, BHOs, Dialers ...; and that malware is only found in commerical software, and for that matter where there is a monopoly position in the provision of core code. Actual details of Computer_worms, Computer_viruses et cetera belong on their own pages, and perhaps some very, very simple simple information on avoiding and detecting the presence of malware
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. -- Ben.the.mole 22:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the Common Malware Enumeration (CME) spyware and adware cannot be considered malware due to their non-destructive nature. Have a look here (A3. What is "malware"?) http://cme.mitre.org/about/faqs.html . Do you guys think spyware should be included in this article? Viruswitch 01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-Spyware destroys privacy.
PJTraill 10:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) They are malware – anything intended to make a system behave contrary to its owners rightful expectations should be considered malware. That leaves the open question what one has a right to expect from ones system (DRM?), but using my system to pester or snoop on me is clearly out. As to CME, "CME defines malware as ..." doesn't mean we have to accept it, rather indicates there may be other opinions. I would go so far as to suggest this definition as preferrable to "software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system, without the owner's consent".
ALL ware is f***ing evil and destructive.
-H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 10:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this website that I would like to warn people about, how would I do that? WWW.CRACKZ.WS is a hacker front for malware DON'T GO THERE!!! Instead go here http://forums.spywareinfo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t61280.html, how would I warn on wikipedia or the public about this site? Pseudoanonymous 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
A script kiddie site. Is it any wonder that actual coders put malware into the files to infect the script kiddies who cant make/compile their own files? 68.49.72.210 04:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The page originally stated:
This is easy to read in a way that suggests that one cannot construct software that is recognizably free of viruses. If by a virus, we mean code that can access unintended machine resources, this is clearly false. Code implemented on top of a virtual machine whose operations access only limited resources can itself access only limited resources. I changed this to a slightly more awkward, but substantially more clear form:
I also added:
I think that this addition is important, because this mistake has, in fact, often been made, and as a consequence has discouraged work that could help to reduce the virus problem in the real world. Harold f 07:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to have been at some point a bit of an etymology war going on in the opening paragraph. I wrote it to reflect both points of view (to really settle this, someone ought to track down the first known use of the term, and figure it out from there, a la OED--though if we don't, I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually, stuffy old coots though they are). I also removed the French language segue for offenses against punctuation and necessity. I think most English readers are probably aware of the meaning of the prefix mal- and can click on the link if they're not. Also, French is a fairly arbitrary choice; the prefix is common to all Romance languages, and standard practice is to go back to the Latin. Durito 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has a few POV problems. Words like "unfortunately" do not belong in an encyclopedia article. There are also citations needed for some claims in this article that seem pretty far fetched. 68.43.121.42 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole "Fighting Malware" section needs citations from reputable sources and needs to be rewritten to present only facts. Wikipedia is not an instructional guide, and encyclopedia article doesn't tell users what they "should" or "should not" do. 68.43.121.42 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
68.43.121.42 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nagle, "badware" is not only not in any standard dictionary but also not in any of the slang or the many computer dictionaries normally listed at www.onelook.com. (Compare http://www.onelook.com/?loc=bm3&w=virus ) In fact, the only reference found by Onelook is Wikipedia. That means it's an extremely rare word, which is confirmed by the search http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22badware%22&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=dictionary+glossary+words+terms+lexicon&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
which produces only very few glossary results that can (almost) be taken seriously such as the following:
This seems to indicate that "badware" is at most jargon and only of a very small group of people. The only serious use of the word i could find was at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48490.html and http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126928-c,aol/article.html which seems to indicate that it's a very new word, perhaps even originally the name of the website mentioned in both articles http://www.stopbadware.org
Especially in light of this situation, i find it quite amusing that you added this very rare word while removing the information that most normal computer users never use the word "malware" and instead use "virus" as the generic term. This change was especially uncalled for because you say my edit was "uncited". A quick look in some general dictionaries would have shown you that it's unnecessary to provide a source. This is especially true since i'm describing a situation that anyone who is in contact with normal people knows to be true. In fact, although some dictionaries do give the "geeky" i.e. professionally correct description of "computer virus", these are actually prescriptionist and therefore incorrect according to the guidelines of these same dictionaries. You seem to be a computer professional with very little contact with normal users, otherwise you'd know what more than about 90% of all computer users call "malware".
Your edit was also not good because your use of "hostile code" means nothing to most Wikipedia users. It should at the very least be "programming code" or "computer code". That is why i changed your edit
Malware is a generic term covering a variety of forms of hostile code. The term "badware" is a synonym for "malware".
of my version
However, many normal computer users are still unfamiliar with the term, and most never use it. Instead, "virus" is more commonly used in common parlance to describe all kinds of malware.
to
Malware is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile computer code. Another term used for this is "badware", but this new term was apparently coined to mean any "software that fundamentally disregards a user's choice over how his or her computer will be used." ( http://www.stopbadware.org/home/faq) In that sense, "badware" is a more general term that encompasses "malware", which then means only malicious software. In addition, many normal computer users are still unfamiliar with the term, and most never use it. Instead, "virus" is more commonly used in common parlance to describe all kinds of malware.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/virus?view=uk a piece of code surreptitiously introduced into a system in order to corrupt it or destroy data.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=virus 4 : a computer program that is usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program and that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus
http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/C0539700.html A computer program that is designed to replicate itself by copying itself into the other programs stored in a computer. It may be benign or have a negative effect, such as causing a program to operate incorrectly or corrupting a computer's memory.
And last but not least, Computer virus.
-- Espoo 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There is one thing that we could add to this page that isn't discussed at all. What about software that doesn't try to intentionally harm your computer, but the programmers weren't exactly the best in the business and so their uninstall fails. It ends up leaving parts of the program in your computer and unless you get some specific but risky software to edit the registry, you can't get it off your computer ever. This has happened to me a few times with software demos that came with magazines. 216.191.40.149 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia's recent malware attack? Its on Google News that some hackers hacked Wikipedia. -- 66.218.11.146 07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the distribution box into an HTML comment, because malwaare is a type of software, not a liscence/distribution type. -- ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we delete all links in WP to TopTenREVIEWS (once accidentally or purposely misname Anti-spyware-review.com) on the basis of http://www.castlecops.com/a5466-Don%e2%80%99t_Always_Believe_What_You_Read.html In fact, we should probably even write an article on TopTenREVIEWS. Their 2007 firewall software report even includes a "review" of Sygate, which has been discontinued... -- Espoo 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is DRM included in the links? While many don't like DRM, it is entirely "passive" (it prevents you from being doing something) in contrast to malware which is generally "Active". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.53.43.209 ( talk) 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Computers are so defective these days, i just think that malware programs should be free, i think you buy a computer and get malware, but you buy a console and do not. Why pay for something that doesnt work. Do i pay for xbox 360 updates? -no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I know the two terms are used in slightly different ways but still, I think it would make sense to have a single article as there is a very important overlap in the two notions. Pascal.Tesson 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Grayware seems like a bogus term to begin with, an attempt to classify commercially-produced and "joke" malware as something "less bad" than malware -- FOo 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought this was interesting. I don't edit Wikipedia, but if someone else find this interesting enough to add to this page, go nuts. 211.28.215.95 ( talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm proposing a merger of the new data stealing malware article with the Malware article to eliminate redundancy and forking. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the greyware part should be merged with the Nagware page
do You think so?
24.185.213.227 ( talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Malware, short for malicious software, is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's informed consent."
I am removing the term "damage." Malware is typically -not- designed to damage a computer system. That is illogical. "Damage" implies rendering a computer physically unusable. A criminal cannot make money by causing a computer to stop working. As such, it is not a typical characteristic and I am removing that word. Screen317 ( talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article misses to stress the very important point that pretty much all malware runs on Windows, and that other alternatives, especially Linux, are pretty much malware-free. Yes, it is "implied" by the article, but not said in clear, layman terms. As such the article is poor in terms of quality-of-information. What is the sue of it being precise, when it is hard to understand? when its information is, because of being obscure, mostly useless? yamaplos 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos ( talk • contribs)
Arguably a rootkit is not necessarily malware; An employer might install a rootkit to undetectably monitor, say network accesses or even keystrokes, without that monitoring being ever disabled or subverted. A publisher with pre-release content might deploy a rootkit on clearly labelled "Not for distribution" plastic (perhaps) optical disks that 'root' machines into which they are inserted, to disable standard optical hardware - turning a general purpose machine (probably on the premises of the publisher) into a playback-only one. People handling pre-release content would understand this and know not to put such contaminated disks into normal machines (or face the consequences). It like a customised OS without needing to recompile the kernel or have access to its source.
The "Rootkit" section could be completely removed and replaced by a reference to the Rootkit page!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.123.102 ( talk) 17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The article should include a section on what can be done to prevent infection with malware. One of the most basic methods is to stop logging on as "administrator" all the time. Under versions of Windows prior to Vista, it was normal for a home user to use an account with full administrator rights all the time. Vista and Windows 7 now use UAC to prevent background installs of software, but even Win 2000 / Win XP users can benefit from creating a separate low-privilege "User" account and using that all the time, and only using a higher-privileged administrative account in those rare situations where programs need to be installed or removed.
The same applies to other operating systems, though both OSX, linux, and other unix variants seem to have this fairly well sorted out: don't logon as administrator all the time.
DMahalko ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add the following, but need to find cites first. So, temporary save here for now.
Removing malware from within a running and compromised system can be extremely difficult, to impossible. Malware programmers know that people will attempt to remove the software so they take steps to make removal as hard as possible.
In many cases the surest and most effective way to scan for and remove malware and viruses is to not run the infected system at all, so that the malware is unable to actively combat the removal process. There are generally two ways to do this:
Often it is not simply a matter of removing the known malware files. While running on the system, the malware may have changed a wide range of system configuration settings that will continue to cause malfunctions, may have broken any installed security software, and may both leave the system less secure than it was before, as well as leaving behind seed code intended to attempt to trigger a re-infection again using the Internet, at a later time.
In many cases the only way to find out what specific damage malware does is for the software to be run in a controlled environment such as a virtual machine, or in a regular system with disk snapshotting enabled, and then monitoring what changes it makes to the system. This information is then used to create a repair script that is used by anti-malware software to restore an infected system's configuration to its pre-infection state.
DMahalko ( talk) 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has a lot of good content - quite a bit actually! There is so much it seems like it could really benefit from being broken into sub-pages for History of malware, or Academic research, or other sections that are almost an article in length in their own right. Maybe there could be a paragraph or two that is then continued with additional info on another page? Right now it just seems to me that the page is a little hard to navigate and might be daunting for a reader who is not familiar with the topics discussed in the Malware article. PatrickCarbone ( talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, at the bottom of the article it shows a HTML element. What if a hijacker was looking for a quicker way to hijack and they looked there?
98.28.183.68 ( talk) 02:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This article presents the usual terms, "Trojan horses", "viruses", "worms"! Certainly useful! But would it be possible to make it more concrete/technical! Or if this is out-of-scope for an encyclopaedic article, a reference to such a more technical/detailed article of high quality.
How and when is the execution of the "malware" started? By a modified boot-sector starting "malware" instead of the operating system. By the modification of the list of "services/daemons" the operating system starts. For Windows, possibly an entry in "Autoexec"?
At least for one special example! One gets the impression that in this field it is more about the authors copying each other than to come with hard facts! In other words, the rumours are flourishing! To the benefit of firms providing security software! Searching with Google one finds a lot of adverts for such software but not much useful information!
Stamcose ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Logically, it should be two stages
-The malicious code is written to the victim's disc
-Some configuration files are modified in such a way that the operting system automatically transfers the control to the malicious software after power-up
Explain for at least one example!
Stamcose ( talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Imho it should be noted, that most anti-malware programs do not only consider software possibly unwanted by the user as PUPs, but also software unwanted by content owners (e.g. filesharing-prograes, Keygens and software like AnyDVD or CloneCD). -- MrBurns ( talk) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is not ready for GA as a number of sections are entirely unreferenced. A GA reviewer might also consider the article to be lacking in illustrations which should be provided "if possible" — surely true here. It is also advisable for a nominator new to an article to consult with editors who have been working on the article, if not to participate in editing and improving it until it is clear that it is ready to submit. The text appears reasonably stable and not excessively point-of-view so once citations have been supplied and checked the article should be well worth re-submitting for GA review. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why Adobe Flash is not on the spyware list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.196.122 ( talk) 02:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the section about "Known good", as it appeared to be very tangential to the main flow of the section, and when I looked into which editor added it, I strongly believe that editor has an affiliation with Nexor, and so the content could be construed as there only for self-promotion purposes. - CoLocate ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No mention in the article of any hardware-based malware - USB micro-code, BIOS, routers etc. 122.106.249.198 ( talk) 09:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
the source cited (techterms.com) does not actually say what that first sentence does. it's related, but it doesn't appear to be a good source for the text as it appears here. Colbey84 ( talk) 21:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the "mal" in malware was merely from the Latin for "bad." Lots of malware isn't necessarily malicious (it might just be poorly written and insecure, opening up security holes on computers running it), but it is all bad. Should we change this? I see that the term "badware" is referenced. I have never heard someone say badware in my life, and in my experience, most people say malware for software which is unintentionally bad.
35.2.151.60 ( talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Malware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest merging the PE infection page into the Viruses subheading under Concealment. The section would then read:
An alternative to this would be to include it into the header section under Concealment, making it read as follows:
^Above proposed 19OCT17. I made the changes outlined in the first paragraph on 21OCT17. -- Baumergrl ( talk) 17:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Added some facts and links about this type of ransomware for Android devices. Plus added some info about the new version of RAT trojan for Mac. Catwilmore ( talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"The most common evasion technique is when the malware evades analysis and detection by fingerprinting the environment when executed." I have not read the book linked, but fingerprinting would be a good way to detect the malware, NOT a good way for the malware to avoid detection. This bullet point does not seem to make sense. It should either be removed, or, if someone understands how it makes sense, then it should be edited for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.241.189 ( talk) 03:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)