Talk:Computer worm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Computer worm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software / Security Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 10 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Invokerishard. Peer reviewers: Andrew.willman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morris worm

According to several sources, Morris was a Cornell grad student at the time. Can this be debunked or confirmed?

What are your sources? Could you provide them?

Is Morris the guy who "took down the Internet"? (my dad's words)

See Morris worm Nixdorf 06:58, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Useful page

Looking for more information about a strange e-mail I got, I found a link to this page from http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Tech&cat=Computer_Viruses_and_Worms . Κσυπ Cyp 21:52, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Genetic code in worms?

Genetic code that evolves, but keeps the algorithm intact (a.k.a. polymorphic code) is used by some worms that tries to hide their presence.. I can really feel and SEE how the academic world is left behind, blind. That kind of stuff has been around for YEARS you know :P!!! "It MIGHT"?!?!? Doh. // Noone

There's more to genetic algorithm than change. In general, genetic algorithms use three "operators" to drive "evolution": "selection", "mutation", and "recombination", with generatlly selection being considered the most fundamental. I can see how "mutation" can be defined in this sense (random changes do qualify all right), but I definitely can't see recombination and, more importantly, I don't yet see if there's any selection process at work. If we can argue that certain random "mutations" are more viable and thus spread better then others this might qualify as GA but not otherwise, IMHO. Any refelctions?

The bit in the article about 'genetic code' is indeed plain wrong - genetic algorithms have nothing to do with polymorphic code. - David Gerard 12:08, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you people are right :| Hum.. But I dont see how that (genetic algorithms) could be a benefit to the worm? Perhaps I am just stupid. Noone

Good worms?

"It should be pointed out that worms are not always bad, and in fact can be occasionally useful, for instance they could be used to upgrade software on a very large privately run network."

Unless someone can come up with an actual example to put in the article (I can think of none), this is mere speculation and shouldn't really be in the article. - David Gerard 12:32, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I recall there was a worm (or whatever you call it) that exploited one of the RPC vulnerabilities of Windows systems (I'd guess it should have been either MS03-026 or MS03-039) but instead of doing harm it installed the official Microsoft patch eliminating the vulnerability. I'll try to dig up some sort of evidence but maybe someone has it readily available? --jtg 10:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

There was a worm that went around trying to be a 'good' worm in the manner you describe, using the RPC vulnerability to remove the other worm and then close the hole. However, that worm caused its own bucket of trouble in the process. I'll comment out the claim in the article for now, pending a good example. - David Gerard 11:44, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add a balanced comment on the topic, see the main page. --jtg 12:59, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Good one! - David Gerard 13:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

the page seems to clearly state: Both worms and Trojans will cause harm to computers when executed. Harm however is a pretty subjective word.. take MyDoom.W32 for example: the Worm itself did nothing 'harmful' to the system, it simply made it less secure. (bad example, I know.) there's countless information gathering worms these days, or do they fall under some other catagory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.14.100 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that some computers where I worked (CA 2003) were infected with a worm that tried to remove another worm. Sorry, but I don't have the details. I also heard a rumor that there was a worm that installed SETI@Home on infected computers. (Is this last an urban legend?) 206.53.197.12 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer theory

I'll see what I can find in evidence for the spammer theory of worm creation, something more substantial than "security experts agree." A lot of spam is known to be sent from home PCs rather than conventional open relays (a server with an SMTP server configured open), and a worm-installed backdoor is the presumed mechanism. Hmm ... - David Gerard 13:58, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Found one! http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60747,00.html No doubt there's more. Having a single source, I've named the opining experts in question - Steve Linford from the antispammer side, Joe Stewart from the security side. That sentence is clumsy, but could reasonably be removed with more sources - David Gerard 14:17, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

And another: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/68810/1/.html - names removed from sentence. - David Gerard 14:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Rebooting and Worms

I read in the Encyclopedia of Computer Science from Wiley (2003) that a worm can be destroyed by rebooting a computer. They often reside in RAM, but I guess that means they can also reside on the HDD. I believe that the article in question hasn't been updated since around 1995. Is this actually true? I know there are worm removal tools, so why would those exist if the solution were a simple reboot?--Abs Like Jesus 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is completely true in the case of worms and Live distro's.. but that's justy silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.14.100 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I don't see why searching for worm takes you automatically to the "elongated soft-bodied invertebrate animal" page. I mean call me crazy, but I think more people are interested in this type of worm. Elongated soft-bodied invertebrate animals are so last millenium. Erik E. 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! awesomness. However in most contries these days, the Biology students still outnumber the Comp-Sci students by a healthy margin. page counter maybe? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.14.100 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify origins of term

The article states that the name "worm" comes from a novel in 1975. It also implies that it was coined by Shock and Hupp in 1982. But that a worm was first created in 1978. This is very confusing. Which came first? How is the 1975 novel's use of the term relavent to the researchers' 1982 use of it? Did they call their 1978 program a worm? I am so confused! A2Z (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locating the CACM paper for Shoch (that's how John spells his name) and Hupp, you would find that the authors quote lines from the 1975 novel in the paper and provided inspiration and other thinking while they were writing code and experimenting with the program(s) in 1978. So did they call their '78 program a worm? Yes. Ask them. 74.95.195.138 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translating the german article?

The german Wikipedia has a great article about this topic here; it's much more organised and informing than this one. It was even a featured article there. If someone can translate it and replace this one with it, please do. 89.148.38.117 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The term comes from Brunner's Shockwave Rider... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operating systems

Are they any good sources on the relative vulnerabilities of the different major operating systems? (I swear I'm not just suggesting this as a Mac fanboy… it really does seems relevant to the subject. (: ) $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's all windows. Just like it's hard to find a source that underlines the fact that all Spanish people are humans. Too obvious to mention. I too find this a serious flaw with this article though. (And I'm not a winders or macos user.) 85.76.3.176 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV please.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "blitz worm"?

Is "blitz worm" worthy of a mention?

Reference out of date

Reference number 4, "Uncovered: Trojans as Spam Robots" no longer exists. I tried searching the new site for a new link, but the article may have been removed from heise.de altogether. Alajamber (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Wayback link. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Computer worm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150525120335/http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=4509574&arnumber=4358715&count=10&index=3 to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=4509574&arnumber=4358715&count=10&index=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anti-worm article here

A worm is a worm is a worm is a worm. There's no need to use a neo-logism to have a separate article, which would forever basically just be in stub state. Especially given that this article states that most experts agree there's no such thing as a "helpful worm" in the first place. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm's and anti-worms are different but are still apart of the same subject. But anti worms are acting against worms so they have an entirely different purpose, but are still "worms" [ Zion Koudijs]

Agree - the antiworm article should be merged in as a small section here. ` Snori (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Sources

Invokerishard (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1.Wehner, Stephanie1 Analyzing worms and network traffic using compression. Journal of Computer Security. 2007, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p303-320. 18p. 6 Diagrams, 1 Chart, 1 Graph. https://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24417921&site=ehost-live

2.Bronk, Christopher，Tikk-Ringas, Eneken The Cyber Attack on Saudi Aramco.Survival (00396338). Apr/May2013, Vol. 55 Issue 2, p81-96. 16p. https://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86689165&site=ehost-liveOn the Trail of the Conficker Worm.

3.Lawton, George，On the Trail of the Conficker Worm. Computer (00189162). Jun2009, Vol. 42 Issue 6, p19-22. 4p. 1 Chart https://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=42648582&site=ehost-live

Stop the madness, a Worm is a "Computer Virus".

We're ultimately talking about common usage here, and even in the industry, *all malware* are varying types of viruses, as Computer Virus is the umbrella term under which all malware is then specialized. And this includes worms.

And there are no "good worms". If you're looking for a pedantic "what-if" scenario of a good worm, or found a case where something that self replicated throughout a network or other medium was designed with good intentions, then you've found something *misnamed* as a "worm".

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]