On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:35:49PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > But a worm is not a virus.
>
> What's the difference?
>
> I see no essential difference between a "virus" that travels by
> stack-smashing an unpatched IIS and a "worm" that travels by
> stack-smashing an unpatched fingerd.
Worms propagate specifically by travelling over networks. Viruses (not
'virii' - learn Latin to know why) can use a network to get from machine
to machine, but they require some level, however minimal, of human
assistance to load.
If I am running a machine with an IIS vulnerability or a sendmail
vulnerability or whatever, listening to some port on the 'net, a
worm can exploit it without me even being near the machine. The same
machine can be sent a million copies of a "virus" by e-mail, but
until I open these files with a vulnerable app (Outlook, etc.), my
machine is not running any of the malicious code (i.e., infected).
Viruses use to spread primarily through infected files by booting
infected disks. Those are not worms.
The lines can be blurry, especially when you inject additional risks
like trojan horses, but those are, essentially, the salient distinctions.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 05-Jun-2004 02:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -82.7 F (-63.7 C) Windchill -124.9 F (-87.2 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 12.7 kts Grid 118 Barometer 663.6 mb (11249. ft)
Ethan.Dicks_at_amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 21:57:05 BST