 |
|
|
|
Next: Comments from users of Road Runners AV, Firewall ..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 02, 2005
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 6:03 pm
Post subject: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition.
Archived from groups: alt>comp>anti-virus (more info?)
|
|
|
Dear Group,
Something to debate.
Commercial Interests aside...
I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware and
Spyware.
Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program that
spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body. However
not all Viruses do that.... therefore the term is already an umbrella label
for a multitude of different infectious programs... so why not include
Spyware and Adware.
If you went into a High Street shop and someone injected you with a
radioactive dye so that 'Shop Big Brother' could track you in Town, I'm sure
you'd go to a Doctor for treatment, just as you would with an illness that
required a cure, you probably wouldn't seek the remedy from a seperate
source. Although knowing shops they'd probably sell the antidote, with a two
for one offer.
Cheers
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 26, 2004
Posts: 389
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"David" <damiwi RemoveThis @dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:428a23e8$0$308$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Dear Group,
>
> Something to debate.
>
> Commercial Interests aside...
>
> I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware
and
> Spyware.
It already does if you let common usage define meaning. 
The fact is that computer 'virus' is already defined with
self-replication being a major point (and sometimes the only point) and
'adware and spyware' may or may not self-replicate so should not use
that term.
> Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program
that
> spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body.
Not quite, but close enough I suppose. It replicates, so it must spread
too - in this case within a system as a program infector. But originally
the 'system' was a 'Turing Machine' and the virus only replicated
itself - no 'infection' because no filesystem for program files, or
other devices for program storage were defined.
> However not all Viruses do that....
The fact that some viruses are communicable (from 'system to system')
does not make them not viruses - bio or otherwise.
> therefore the term is already an umbrella label
> for a multitude of different infectious programs... so why not include
> Spyware and Adware.
Because it is not 'infection' but 'self-replication' that defines a
virus at its most basic level.
> If you went into a High Street shop and someone injected you with a
> radioactive dye so that 'Shop Big Brother' could track you in Town,
I'm sure
> you'd go to a Doctor for treatment,
Yep, but he wouldn't have to be a virologist - that's for sure.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 23
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 10:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> Something to debate.
>
> Commercial Interests aside...
>
> I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware and
> Spyware.
Why? Do adware and spyware replicate.
>
> Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program that
> spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body. However
> not all Viruses do that....
Really? Which viruses don't behave like viruses? The ones that aren't?
therefore the term is already an umbrella label
Not really. Malware is an umbrella label.
> for a multitude of different infectious programs... so why not include
> Spyware and Adware.
'cause. See above.
> >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 1566
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 11:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> Something to debate.
>
> Commercial Interests aside...
>
> I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware and
> Spyware.
stop taking whatever mind altering chemical you're on...
> Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program that
> spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body. However
> not all Viruses do that
yes they do...
>.... therefore the term is already an umbrella label
> for a multitude of different infectious programs
to be infectious implies they're 'spreading' from one host to another so
apparently you're contradicting your previous statement that not all
viruses spread...
> ... so why not include
> Spyware and Adware.
the term virus is very well defined, it is a functional definition and
it works very well... adware and spyware are also very well defined and
don't necessarily fall under the virus definition...
you want an umbrella term? one already exists... the term is *malware*...
you want anti-virus products to detect non-viral malware? vote with your
wallet, don't redefine terms so that they're more convenient for you...
--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath" >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 02, 2005
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:13 am
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
You say below ...
yes they do...
But actually Computer Viruses don't all behave in the same manner and
there's absolutely no point in giving you a lesson in different types of
Computer Viruses when you can check out any On-line Encylopedia; Norton,
Trend etc.
You say
to be infectious implies they're 'spreading' from one host to another
Okay, Spyware and Adware does this, from the originator to your system.
You say
you're contradicting your previous statement
An agent can be infectious but not spread... a localised infection.
Kurt, I'd rather be on a mind altering drug than a narrow minded one.
Regards
David.
p.s If you notice I said spread within a system... like a replicator virus
for example, so my point stands.
"kurt wismer" <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Uryie.1878$Wp.418423@news20.bellglobal.com...
> David wrote:
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> Something to debate.
>>
>> Commercial Interests aside...
>>
>> I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware and
>> Spyware.
>
> stop taking whatever mind altering chemical you're on...
>
>> Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program
>> that spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body.
>> However not all Viruses do that
>
> yes they do...
>
>>.... therefore the term is already an umbrella label for a multitude of
>>different infectious programs
>
> to be infectious implies they're 'spreading' from one host to another so
> apparently you're contradicting your previous statement that not all
> viruses spread...
>
>> ... so why not include
>> Spyware and Adware.
>
> the term virus is very well defined, it is a functional definition and it
> works very well... adware and spyware are also very well defined and don't
> necessarily fall under the virus definition...
>
> you want an umbrella term? one already exists... the term is *malware*...
>
> you want anti-virus products to detect non-viral malware? vote with your
> wallet, don't redefine terms so that they're more convenient for you...
>
> --
> "we are the revenants
> and we will rise up from the dead
> we become the living
> we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath" >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 02, 2005
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:30 am
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I accept that Malware is a term used.
Short for malicious software, software designed specifically to damage or
disrupt a system.
Again this is slightly misleading because not all infectious programs cause
damage or disruption.
Undesired Software might be a better term.
'Underware'
That's a better Generic Term.
I'll Copyright that here and Now
David Williamson 2005
'Underware' - short for any undesired software that is loaded by any means
onto a Computer without the express wish or knowledge of the owner;
including Viruses, Malware, Trojans, Adware, Spyware and the like.
Underware
Now I'm happier. We just need underware removal software.
Anyboy want to market this and make millions E-mail me privately.
Regards
David.
"optikl" <optikl DeleteThis @com_invalid_cast.net> wrote in message
news:nfGdnb3WVa2VLhffRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> David wrote:
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> Something to debate.
>>
>> Commercial Interests aside...
>>
>> I believe that the overall label Computer Virus should cover Adware and
>> Spyware.
>
> Why? Do adware and spyware replicate.
>>
>> Originally I believe that the Virus term was used to define a program
>> that spread within a system, like a Viral agent does in the human body.
>> However not all Viruses do that....
>
> Really? Which viruses don't behave like viruses? The ones that aren't?
>
>
> therefore the term is already an umbrella label
>
> Not really. Malware is an umbrella label.
>
>> for a multitude of different infectious programs... so why not include
>> Spyware and Adware.
>
>
> 'cause. See above.
>
>> >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 1566
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David wrote:
> I accept that Malware is a term used.
>
> Short for malicious software, software designed specifically to damage or
> disrupt a system.
>
> Again this is slightly misleading because not all infectious programs cause
> damage or disruption.
the infected host has it's integrity corrupted, by definition (an
infector cannot infect without changing something)... that is sufficient
to call the infector 'malware'...
--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath" >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 1566
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David wrote:
> You say below ...
please learn to quote properly...
> yes they do...
>
> But actually Computer Viruses don't all behave in the same manner and
> there's absolutely no point in giving you a lesson in different types of
> Computer Viruses when you can check out any On-line Encylopedia; Norton,
> Trend etc.
there's no point in giving me a lesson in different types computer
viruses period... all viruses spread... you can't be a self-replicating
program without spreading...
>
> You say
> to be infectious implies they're 'spreading' from one host to another
>
> Okay, Spyware and Adware does this, from the originator to your system.
spyware and adware don't spread themselves, other agents spread them...
> You say
>
> you're contradicting your previous statement
>
> An agent can be infectious but not spread... a localised infection.
a localized infection just means localized spreading...
> Kurt, I'd rather be on a mind altering drug than a narrow minded one.
>
> Regards
>
> David.
>
> p.s If you notice I said spread within a system... like a replicator virus
> for example, so my point stands.
you're point is not pointy... all viruses spread... if you think
otherwise then name one that doesn't...
--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath" >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 02, 2005
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 1566
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 7:35 am
Post subject: Re: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David wrote:
> Kurt says
kurt says you still need to learn how to quote properly...
> you're point is not pointy... all viruses spread... if you think
> otherwise then name one that doesn't...
>
> Okay...
>
> Introgen's INGN 241, a non-replicating virus that transfects cancer cells
> with mda-7
y'know, it's generally accepted that when one says 'virus' in a computer
virus related newsgroup one is referring to computer viruses... to refer
to biological viruses it's usually required that you specify the
biological part in order to disambiguate your statements...
apparently somewhere you failed to do so - all *computer* viruses
spread... computer viruses were so named because of a *loose* analogy
with their biological counterparts been established long ago that the
analogy is not perfect... the term computer virus is well defined, as
are adware and spyware, and while they can intersect adware and spyware
do not generally meet the defining requirements necessary to be a
computer virus and therefore should not be called computer viruses...
--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath" >> Stay informed about: Debate - should Spyware/Adware fall within Virus Definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | adware/spyware or virus? - Been having huge problems getting on the internet all day. As I stated in a post below, my email works but when I try to browse the internet all I get is "Page cannot be displayed" I am running WINXP and using Bell Sympatico High Speed. I ran ...
virus or adware/spyware causing this problem - Been having huge problems getting on the internet all day. My email works but when I try to browse the internet all I get is "Page cannot be displayed" I am running WINXP and using Bell Sympatico High Speed. I ran Adaware, Spybot and did a vir...
Why are people posting about spyware and adware in alt.com.. - I've come back from lurk mode to ponder this question. I don't see very many posts dealing with viruses and worms anymore. Instead, I see many posts dealing with spyware and adware; neither of which are viruses. Perhaps, someone could enlighten me as to....
Adware & spyware - Is it that bad? Can it slow down your computer? What's the best way to get rid of it, being a beginner .. Thanks : -)
"Adware Spyware Popups" - POPUP! - Hi I keep getting a webpage popup, even when my Browser is offline. It pops-up an advert from "NOADWARE.net" trying to sell their product, to remove it! I have WIN XP firewall on, ZONEALARM Firewall on Max security, running AVG Anti-Virus, la... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
