[lkml]   [1997]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [masq] 1st virus in Linux :( (fwd) (Alan Cox)  wrote on 09.02.97 in <>:

> > It's a virus in the old sense all right.
> No. Its a trojan. If the superuser doesn't run a binary containing it then
> it cannot affect more than the binaries a user has created of their own.
> Having the superuser run random user installed binaries could do far
> worse.

Sorry, but the difference between a virus and a trojan is not how likely
it is to be able to work under different security scenarios. (For another
example, I know of no Mac virus that works if you have Disinfectant
installed on the Mac. Does this make those viruses into trojans? Of course

A virus is something that infects binaries. A trojan is something that
mimics something else. This is a virus.

> > Actually, I fail to understand the need of people to relabel a virus as a
> > trojan.
> Because there are specific distinctions in security between a program
> which actively operates and seeks to attack system resources or applications
> to infect things and a trap that sits waiting for someone dumb enough to
> run it.

"Dumb" doesn't enter into it. This is just as bad as McAfee's marketing
hype is.

The difference between "virus", "trojan", and "worm", describes how the
bad code works (or is supposed to work, at that). It has nothing at all to
do with how dumb errors you have to make to fall for it.

MfG Kai

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.055 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site