RE: MacOSX worm

  You're drawing a distinction between "self propagating" and
"replicate themselves (across ... networks)" that I fail to grasp.
Can you try to elaborate the distinction you see between these?

David Gillett


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hansen [mailto:lootefisk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:03 PM
> To: focus-virus@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: MacOSX worm
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:40:29 -0600, Kevin O'Brien
> <kobrien@solutionscxo.com> wrote:
> > If it has no way of self propagating then it cannot be 
> called a worm and is
> > more accurately classified as a virus.  Yes it can be 
> spread by file sharing
> > as any other virus can.  What makes worms unique is the 
> ability to spread
> > without user intervention.
>
> This is a defiinition of worm that I am not familiar with. I have
> always used Dr Vesselin Bontchev's definition:
>
> "Programs which are able to replicate themselves (usually 
> across computer
> networks) as stand-alone programs (or sets of programs) and 
> which do not
> depend on the existence of a host program are called computer worms.
> In some aspects, worms can be considered a special case of 
> viruses. For
> instance, if under the term "host program" in the definition of the
> computer virus we understand the whole programming environment of a
> particular computer, then a worm is simply a virus which infects this
> environment."
>
> - Bontchev, 1998
>
> The last years the term "virus" has loosened up a bit from its first
> usage (which was what we can call parasitic viruses) and now covers
> all replicating programs. So, worms are a subset of viruses.
>
>
> - Loote