What's up with viruses?

[Jas]

We all shiver at the words "Computer Virus." My question is, what's the point of these computer viruses? I mean, what moron spends their spare time figuring out how to destroy someone else's computer-- especially when they will never see it work? I just never understood the concept. For example, last year one of my computers got a virus that opened windows pain from the command prompt and then drew a star. :confused: Why spend your time doing something like that?

This is a stupid topic, I know, but I have been pondering this for a while now. Spam is usually to sell you stuff, so as annoying as it is, at least there is a point to it. What about viruses?

[boogyman]

capital gain
destruction
mayhem
frustration
annoyance
ignorance

are just a few reasons. just think of any reason imaginable and I am sure its probably been motive for some type of computer virus at some point. Like for instance... why do you smile, because you are happy... There were a number of "Love" email virus' that went around in the late 1990's on this very topic.

the biggest being capital gain and destruction.
Capital gain in leighman terms is just grabbing information for identity theft purposes
and desctruction, well, that is just because they have some vendetta and would like to make others lives more difficult.

The good thing, if you could call it that, about viruses is that they are platform specific, meaning a computer virus written for a Windows machine (most popular) will not infect an apple/mac or linux based OS. The reason for this is that each kernel (inner working) and directory system (how the files are stored and accessed) are different on each. So when the virus looks for the path "C:\Documents and Settings\name" on one of those other platforms it will return nothing, because the hierarchy of it's (OS) shell is set up differently.

[djr33]

Well, it's a bit more than that, as the virus just doesn't run on a mac/linux. Certainly if it was as easy as programming in 3 possible directories, the virus would hit all systems.

Anyway, yeah, the only reason people make viruses is to cause problems. There's some sort of glory to making a virus that destroys computers, or possible there is some actual gain. Or they're just bored and mean.

[Twey]

or example, last year one of my computers got a virus that opened windows pain from the command prompt and then drew a star.It's about artificial life. It's really interesting to watch a program spread, replicate, and otherwise come about as close to actual life as a computer program can. There's also an element of mischief in bypassing someone's defences, much as with real-time cracking. One of the best vira I heard about was one that played a game with the user with the contents of his/her hard drive as stakes. To be honest, if I got hit by that, it may be irritating to lose the contents of my drive, but it would make my day :D

Of course, there are other motivations as well. There was a virus which encrypted random files on the user's hard disk and attempted to extort money in order to get the key to decrypt them; there have been vira that turn the machine into a zombie to form part of a botnet, or launch a DOS attack against a certain server; and there are countless vira that simply cause chaos and destruction, which some people like too.

[Jas]

Wow. Three replies already! Thanks guys.



Capital gain in leighman terms is just grabbing information for identity theft purposes . . .


No doubt, but I was excluding spyware. Although, I guess that is a virus, so okay. :)


. . . and desctruction, well, that is just because they have some vendetta and would like to make others lives more difficult.

So why make it public? Unless you're upset with Microsoft and want to destroy all of the vista computers in the world. . . In which case we're all in trouble (Except for you smart people, who I am sure are running mac OS X).


Well, it's a bit more than that, as the virus just doesn't run on a mac/linux. Certainly if it was as easy as programming in 3 possible directories, the virus would hit all systems.

Although it would be much easier on mac and windows. Linux would be kind of tough. I haven't actually heard of any linux viruses.



Anyway, yeah, the only reason people make viruses is to cause problems. There's some sort of glory to making a virus that destroys computers, or possible there is some actual gain. Or they're just bored and mean.

Okay, so this is the big thing that I am having problems with. Setting spyware aside, what do the creators of these viruses really gain? At worst (speaking of the rough "I'm gunna kill your computer" viruses), they fry a graphics card which the user must reploace before (possibly) reloading their OS. It doesn't really get them anywhere, does it? It probably takes months to code (and how on earth do they test it? Certainly not on one of their computers!), and for what?


One of the best vira I heard about was one that played a game with the user with the contents of his/her hard drive as stakes. To be honest, if I got hit by that, it may be irritating to lose the contents of my drive, but it would make my day :D

Now that's funny! It sounds like a new game show "Save your computer!" But I would take legal action against whoever created it if I ever found them (doubt it).



Of course, there are other motivations as well. There was a virus which encrypted random files on the user's hard disk and attempted to extort money in order to get the key to decrypt them

Er, that's like saying "My name is <name> and I created the virus that is currently afflicting your computer." No one can trace them and file a lawsuit of some sort?

[djr33]

Although it would be much easier on mac and windows. Linux would be kind of tough. I haven't actually heard of any linux viruses.Same with Mac. Not like there are many problems. Ha. Really, there are more viruses or at least reasons for viruses, on linux, to attack servers. Macs are just us weird people, and very few of us.



And for a particularly interesting question: Have there ever been any "helpful" viruses? It cleans up your desktop, organizes your files, and gets rid of spyware.
Or, perhaps there's a virus that just hates microsoft (example), and deletes internet explorer and installs firefox?

[Jas]

Or, perhaps there's a virus that just hates microsoft (example), and deletes internet explorer and installs firefox?
Heh. :D Web developers everywhere rejoice. lol.

If one of those shows up, now, I blame you regardless of whether or not you actually coded it. :p'

EDIT: by the way, my professor showed us this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2542580036602389550) today. You've probably already seen it, but it's pretty funny. (the Bill Gates Plug N Play mishap)

[Trinithis]

Twey:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=virus+plural&btnG=Google+Search

[Trinithis]

As for a reason: Curiosity. People like to try things they haven't done, and coding a virus might be an intellectual and fun journey. Hell, if I had a junk computer, it might be worth trying to create a virus for the learning experience. (Of course I wouldn't infect other computers . . . or so I claim . . . )

[Twey]

Er, that's like saying "My name is <name> and I created the virus that is currently afflicting your computer." No one can trace them and file a lawsuit of some sort?There are various anonymous ways of receiving money, and I think they were in a country where it wasn't considered illegal (or wouldn't be prosecuted anyway).
Except for you smart people, who I am sure are running mac OS XDaniel runs OS X. I run Linux. :)
Although it would be much easier on mac and windows. Linux would be kind of tough. I haven't actually heard of any linux viruses.They have existed, but they usually only last as long as the next patch (~ half a day). I don't believe any Linux vira are currently active in the wild.
And for a particularly interesting question: Have there ever been any "helpful" viruses? It cleans up your desktop, organizes your files, and gets rid of spyware.Yes, certainly. The most common type is a worm that defends the computer against a malicious worm.

Trinithis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus -- It's really a case of 'pick a plural, any plural.' 'Vira' sounds cool and is also potentially grammatically correct. :)

[boxxertrumps]

I don't believe any Linux vira are currently active in the wild.Correct. There are 10 or something, mostly proof of concept stuff.
When something is open source, vulnerabilities are found and patches written before exploits, whereas for closed source, people usually find the vulnerabilities while looking for the exploit.

The most common type is a worm that defends the computer against a malicious worm.Reminds me of that one "Reboot" episode...

[djr33]

Yes, certainly. The most common type is a worm that defends the computer against a malicious worm.But are those worms allowed by the user or actually against (potentially) the user's wishes? Is there any sort of protection under the law for such "CPR" viruses?


///LANGUAGE TANGENT///

In terms of a proper plural, having studied latin, that does in fact seem confusing. Using a latin plural at all, as discussed in the article, seems stupid. It wasn't a singular noun, but rather one of substance, like "water."
"My computer is infected with virus. There's virus in my hard drive, and all over my CPU!"
Using Vira seems most logical, perhaps, or I was first thinking it might be 4th declension as noted in the article.
However, when it comes down to it, Latin had a special set of numbers for representing more than one of an already plural idea. I don't know the details but I believe it involved the genitive, so it would read something like: "two of virus".
As an example, the word "letter" in latin, when plural, mean "writing", ie "letters". So, that's why we have the college of "letters and sciences", meaning writing and sciences. This also, literally, meant a letter sent from one person to another. So, to talk about two letters you couldn't use the plural-- it was already the plural. So you'd get something like "two of letters", meaning "two of those things classified as a bunch of letters written on a page".
This means-- in proper Latin, were they to need to describe possible viruses, they could have said "two of virus", not some form like vira, virūs, virūa, etc.
So here we hit a language barrier and it's time to stop playing archaic word games-- we're speaking in English-- make it easy on everyone (what percent of the population has any idea about latin plurals beyond "whoa that's weird" referring to octopi (which is wrong anyway-- from greek, not latin, so it would be different)?).
So--- viruses.
(It's a different word in English, now, anyway, so why pretend it's still latin?)

And please don't (anyone) use virii. That's just ugly and entirely illogical. malapropism formed by using the ending of radii and such.


And, to get a bit more philosophical, it's stupid things like this that last in the language, through the more educated trying to be "proper" that plague us with stupid irregularities like "whom", which has no purpose in the language. It's an outdated accusative form from early english, and while it's still useful in German, we've moved beyond a case system, so it's just a trace of an old past, no longer useful.

[Jas]

There are various anonymous ways of receiving money, and I think they were in a country where it wasn't considered illegal (or wouldn't be prosecuted anyway).
How can you not be traced? I can understand not being prosecuted, I guess.


Correct. There are 10 or something, mostly proof of concept stuff.
When something is open source, vulnerabilities are found and patches written before exploits, whereas for closed source, people usually find the vulnerabilities while looking for the exploit.

Aye. And, big cooperations don't seem to care quite as much as we (the users) do.


But are those worms allowed by the user or actually against (potentially) the user's wishes? Is there any sort of protection under the law for such "CPR" viruses?

If I wanted anti-virus software, I would buy it and install it (and I have ;)). If something is installed on your computer without your consent (even with good intent), that's an invasion of privacy.

[boogyman]

If I wanted anti-virus software, I would buy it and install it (and I have ;)).

not all anti-virus software you buy is good, and not all anti-virus software costs money.

there are a number of very good anti-virus software applications that are considered free-ware or open source.

with that said, you do need to consider platform (OS) and necessity for the software.


How can you not be traced?
there are applications out there that you can run to surf under a "proxy". that basically is you browsing to some other site using a different IP address. Once again there are services for this that you can buy and there are services that are free. There are also many different types of "proxies", but I am not going to get into that... if you really want to know search google or your engine of choice.

[Twey]

But are those worms allowed by the user or actually against (potentially) the user's wishes? Is there any sort of protection under the law for such "CPR" viruses?They work just like other worms do. There is no legal protection for them, I believe.
So here we hit a language barrier and it's time to stop playing archaic word games-- we're speaking in English-- make it easy on everyone (what percent of the population has any idea about latin plurals beyond "whoa that's weird" referring to octopi (which is wrong anyway-- from greek, not latin, so it would be different)?).
So--- viruses.
(It's a different word in English, now, anyway, so why pretend it's still latin?)But archaic word games are fun :) 'Octopi,' though accepted by most major dictionaries, would more properly be 'octopodes.'
And please don't (anyone) use virii. That's just ugly and entirely illogical. malapropism formed by using the ending of radii and such.It's not even consistent with 'radii' -- one of those 'i's is in 'radius' already, whereas 'virus' is not 'virius.'
And, to get a bit more philosophical, it's stupid things like this that last in the language, through the more educated trying to be "proper" that plague us with stupid irregularities like "whom", which has no purpose in the language. It's an outdated accusative form from early english, and while it's still useful in German, we've moved beyond a case system, so it's just a trace of an old past, no longer useful.Moved beyond a case system? I thinks to I that you is incorrect. When people is talking to I they still uses cases (and inflects for they too). You means they is trying to deceive I?
there are applications out there that you can run to surf under a "proxy". that basically is you browsing to some other site using a different IP address. Once again there are services for this that you can buy and there are services that are free. There are also many different types of "proxies", but I am not going to get into that... if you really want to know search google or your engine of choice.True, but not the case here. More often someone will use an anonymous bank account to store the money (which I guess could be considered a kind of proxy, but not the type you were talking about).

[Jas]

"Put ten thousand dollars in unmarked bills under the bridge, and you'll find the key under the mat on your back door. And don't bring police, or you'll never see your files again!" I like it.


not all anti-virus software you buy is good, and not all anti-virus software costs money.

there are a number of very good anti-virus software applications that are considered free-ware or open source.

with that said, you do need to consider platform (OS) and necessity for the software.

Yes, I am aware of that, and I arrived at the software that I have. But yes, many free programs work very well.

I think the real key to avoiding viruses is, of course, just to be careful. Even the best program can't protect you if you actually force the installation and execution of a virus-- but the program may protest every step of the way. (For example, if you think your downloading an application when it's really a virus. Never really made that mistake, but it happens.)

I've learned that common sense, and maybe some overreacting, go far. If a site wants me to download something, I generally go to another website instead. If the webpage is taking an unusually long time to load, I leave (I got a virus from a site like that once; maybe it's just paranoia, but better safe then sorry). And don't open emails from senders you don't know.

I'm preaching to the choir, I know.

[djr33]

Twey, they may be fun, but they just make the language weird. Language change it natural, and trying to keep archaic forms is just annoying, and why English is so entirely screwed up.
Yes, radius already has an I, which is why the -ii ending makes no sense... it's making a false conclusion that the "ii" ending is for plurals in latin.
As for whom, it is losing it's place, naturally, so it should be let go. Certainly that is not the case with other pronouns at the moment, BUT I did understand everything you said. Give it time, and we'll move to not using annoying structures like that.
However, there is more need (and more prominence for such pronouns) than "whom", because rarely is the question asked "who gave whom what?" (and always heard, now, as "who gave who what?", anyway). "I give who" is clear, as is "who gives me", because the other pronoun, and the WORD ORDER OF ENGLISH!, makes it clear anyway.
Look at Spanish, or Italian, etc.

[Twey]

I think you're less exposed to this than I am. Where I come from, 'whom' is almost as common as other words with case, such as pronouns, and one is quite likely to be corrected if one improperly uses the nominative.

[djr33]

Hm.... good point. I wasn't aware that it was part of the colloquial dialect still. Here, if you say whom at all you'll get some very weird looks, and even those trying to be formal only use it in common phrases, or at best in cases where they've heard it before such as "to whom", not really understanding the real grammar behind it.
For formal academic writing it is encouraged, but in speech just odd. I do actually use it frequently, though not all the time.
I certainly know the rules, and I'm torn between building a habit of using it properly all the time, and encouraging this archaic form (here, anyway) to go away.

[Twey]

... even those trying to be formal only use ... [whom] ... in common phrases, or at best in cases where they've heard it before such as "to whom", not really understanding the real grammar behind it.But then, that's the case with most of the English language, and most language in general. Very few people know the grammar behind their native language; I have a better understanding of English grammar than most, probably, but I've never gone through an English grammar and would never consider my knowledge complete, or, indeed, authoritative.

[djr33]

Oh, but I mean it in more than a learning by copying sense-- they actively use whom in contexts where they have heard it before-- TRYING to sound like they know what's going on. They are trying to use proper grammar, actively, but they don't know the real rules, just what "smart" people have said. That's really the ONLY time I hear whom, at least from the population in general (some professors, etc., know what they're doing).

[Twey]

Again, what's the difference? This is how people learn language. After they've consciously copied it enough times, they'll use it automatically.

[djr33]

One is practically intuitive. No young children use whom in America. It is ONLY something that happens after they are exposed to an advanced academic setting and trying to sound "proper".
Much in the same way that some people would try to use a British accent, this isn't a natural behavior developed as a child, but something done with intent, and usually badly.

[boogyman]

Again, what's the difference? This is how people learn language. After they've consciously copied it enough times, they'll use it automatically.

One is practically intuitive. No young children use whom in America. It is ONLY something that happens after they are exposed to an advanced academic setting and trying to sound "proper".

Learning for humans is much like learning for our closest relative the ape. When apes are young. The main difference between humans and apes, is that humans will attempt to correct or help their offspring, while apes will just go about their daily habits, and its up to the offspring to learn... (going off on a tangent, maybe if humans adopted this habit - more kids would value those small luxuries that others do not have). This is relevant, because while human's correct their offspring, the offspring learns behaviorisms from experience, including language and grammar. The child doesn't need to be exposed to "an advanced academic setting" to use different words. They may not know the meaning or reasoning behind using that word in that specific instance, but as Twey pointed out, there are many grown adults, and wise wise wiseeeeeeee adults that still do not know the meaning behind their native language, whether it be english, as in this case, or some where else.



Much in the same way that some people would try to use a British accent, this isn't a natural behavior developed as a child, but something done with intent, and usually badly.

If a child lives with two blue collar parents and has no exposure to anyone from a British background yes you are correct, but you are wrong otherwise.

[djr33]

I'm a linguistics major. I'm kinda tired of this argument. But I know exactly what you're saying, and, yes, you're right-- most behavior is mimicry until the child has a means of creatively using it. However, this is not what is going on here. OR, if you want to think of it in that way, fine, but it never reaches the creative stage. The only reason people use whom is not as word that actually means something to them, but within certain phrases because they think they will sound smart if they do. This is the case for Americans, and, yes, those "Blue collar" folk, not, as this was originally about, the British.

[benslayton]

One of the best vira I heard about was one that played a game with the user with the contents of his/her hard drive as stakes. To be honest, if I got hit by that, it may be irritating to lose the contents of my drive, but it would make my day :D


im tempted to make my own... Virtual Pc maybe.... ;)

I know enough c++ to do the job!!!! lol
Everyone i wouldnt download any attachments from me.. lol j/k i wouldnt do that...

[boogyman]

im tempted to make my own... Virtual Pc maybe.... ;)

I know enough c++ to do the job!!!! lol
Everyone i wouldnt download any attachments from me.. lol j/k i wouldnt do that...

I never download attachments whether I know the person or not... haha... I have needed to rebuild my firewall for umm... 18months LOL