Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of computer viruses

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organisation

[edit]

I removed the redirect to Talk:Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms. I'm not quite sure why it was there in the first place?

In any case, I have a few suggestions to make. Bear with me, as they may be excessively technical, but it's 3 AM and I'm not terribly coherent.

  • I think we're working with too much information here. All of this information will not fit on one page. I think a name, a discovery date (year if necessary), a subtype, some WildList reference, and notes would be sufficient. Information like author, point of isolation, etc. consumes too much space and is kind of trivial. No reason not to leave that information to its own page.
  • Instead of alphabetically, it might be better to sort by virus type. That way, we don't have to worry about those prefixes that were never standardised. I would suggest these categories: Windows file, Email, Macro, DOS file, boot, Mobile OS (PalmOS+mobile phones - whatever), and Other. I'm not entirely sure what to do about multipartite viruses - any ideas there? (By the way, it might be a good idea to get a categorisation system down before anything too major is done).
  • I'm looking down the current list, and there's already misinformation. I am reasonably sure that A and A does not infect under Win9x. Only a few DOS file infectors, such as Cascade, do this. This has never been well-documented, and the primary OS (e.g. DOS in the case of A and A) should be good for now. I'm not sure we need to list every operating system a virus can run on. This gets us into dangerous waters[[1]].
  • I'd like to see some way of rating how common a virus is. After all, the Probert Encyclopedia has left us with a fascinating and wonderful but dreadfully outdated list of DOS minutia virus. When's the last time any of us have had an outbreak of Scott's Valley? Some use of the WildList[2] might be in order.
  • A bot would rock, although I have no idea how they work. Especially with those boring DOS file infectors. There are, what, 10,000 of those?
  • Should we attempt to follow naming conventions[3]? Obviously, in cases like Jerusalem (violates the geographic rule), it's impossible to, but overall I'd like to see the DOS viruses use the "must" rules as much as possible (although cases like AGI-Plan, violating the company name rule, may be a lost cause).
  • I would like to see this list made into one page making it search able using Ctrl F for fast virus checks.

Sorry if my comment breaks style guidelines. I'm still getting used to this. I look forward on expanding this project. --Trafton 10:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trojans

[edit]

copied from the trojan list. This is a list of Trojan horse computer viruses.

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

== See also ==

==External links==

  • Snopes — Compilation of viruses, worms, and trojan horses.

Get 'em while they're hot folks - they're goin' fast. Of course maybe this section's on the way out the door too, don't know. Feel free to sort, categorize, research, or whatever at your own pleasure (or dis-pleasure). ;) — Ched (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses aint universal!

[edit]

Viruses should also be sorted by OS IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.53.176 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

protection policy

[edit]

the vandalism count on the article is too high and an protection policy might fix this problem. i recommend a semi protected policy for this. Abc123456person (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicating time to updating/completing data.

[edit]

I have a particular interest in computer viruses and Trojans and will seek to update the information contained within this section. Hopefully if this page is given a bit of love and attention, it can become more comprehensive and complete.

I will research into the possibility of creating a bot, however in truth this is currently beyond my capabilities (if only I could write it in C++). Something for the future perhaps...

Peace guys. If I do manage to make any mistakes, please let me know and I will be happy to correct them. Just be gentle, everyone was a newbie once  ;)

SirkusSystems (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Merger proposal ==
I propose that List of computer viruses (Numeric), List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R) and List of computer viruses (S-Z) all be merged into List of computer viruses.
After the removal of redlink viruses from these lists, the remaining list is so short that I believe it would be best to combine these articles in one list.
This list is also subject to becoming even smaller, as I have requested that certain virus articles be merged if the viruses listed are merely variants of one another.
I also believe that this will help prevent further duplication of work in the future. If this was not done then if a virus is added to the List of computer viruses, it would then also have to be added to the List of computer viruses (x-x) page as well. Not only is this duplicating work but could also lead to inconsistencies if this accidentally not done on both lists.
I have presented a mock-up of how this would appear on my sandbox.
Any feedback is greatly appriciated.
Many thanks
Sirkus (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the List of computer viruses (all) list with the List of computer viruses list after removing the large amount of redlinks that would render the merged lists too long. Sirkus (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<discussion>

I propose that List of computer viruses (all) be merged into List of computer viruses. I think that the content in the List of computer viruses (all) is a duplication of the information contained within this page, and it would be quite easy simply provide an "All" list on the List of computer viruses page instead of it having its own section.

Both pages also have their own strengths which if combined would result in a better quality article.

An example of this is that the lead section of the List of computer viruses (all) is not complete, whereas the List of computer viruses lead section is much more informative.

Conversely, the "Notable instances" section is much more complete in the List of computer viruses (all) article, but is almost blank in the List of computer viruses article.

Any thoughts on this guys?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Sirkus (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but don't make the merged version to long. Maybe remove all the redlink items? It's not suppose to be an exhaustive list. Regards, Sun Creator (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for taking the time to read this Talk page.

I do agree that the Redlinks are a particular problem on both the List of computer viruses (all) and the List of computer viruses articles and removing them would improve the clarity of these articles.

I could delete all of these but they actually make up the majority of both articles, meaning if I was to do so it would greatly reduce the lists. There is also the potential that the articles on the viruses in the redlinks could in future be created.

However I have seen many instances on both pages of viruses that despite extensively searching for on the net, do not seem to exist. An instance of this is the Label virus, which had "H1N1" in its info. I am sure that such biological viruses have little bearing on computer viruses.

Over summer I will be looking to create articles on as many of the viruses as possible, potentially linking many of the redlinks. However due to the sheer volume of entries, this may take some time. If no objections are made within the week, I will look to merge the articles and research if the redlink viruses can be found to exist. If not I will then delete them.

Thanks again. Sirkus (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is over a million computer viruses so no chance on listing them all. So I think remove the redlinks and add to it as new virus articles are created. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks a lot. Sirkus (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks removed for List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R), List of computer viruses (S-Z).
Have also removed viruses that are not notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article.
I have previously tried expanding upon these redlink articles, however these articles have then been immediately subject to deletion due to not being notable enough. Due to this I have had no choice but to delete these redlinks.
Await outcome of merger discussion before merge actioned.
If you have any queries relating to this matter please do not hesitate to inform me.
Thanks guys
Sirkus (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
== Merger proposal ==
I propose that List of computer viruses (Numeric), List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R) and List of computer viruses (S-Z) all be merged into List of computer viruses.
After the removal of redlink viruses from these lists, the remaining list is so short that I believe it would be best to combine these articles in one list.
This list is also subject to becoming even smaller, as I have requested that certain virus articles be merged if the viruses listed are merely variants of one another.
I also believe that this will help prevent further duplication of work in the future. If this was not done then if a virus is added to the List of computer viruses, it would then also have to be added to the List of computer viruses (x-x) page as well. Not only is this duplicating work but could also lead to inconsistencies if this accidentally not done on both lists.
I have presented a mock-up of how this would appear on my sandbox.
Any feedback is greatly appriciated.
Many thanks
Sirkus (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.Thank you Sun Creator for your input, especially regarding the redlink matter. Your feedback was greatly appriciated. .As this discussion has been active for one week and no objections have been raised regarding this merger, I will action it as requested.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

not here

[edit]

So why isn't Wiper/SkyWiper/Flame on here?--SmartyPantsKid (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the inclusion criteria are. Here are a couple of refs which may be of some use.[4][5] If appropriate, they could possibly be included in the table. -- Trevj (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New recent very powerful virus

[edit]

I think the article should include Java update virus in the list of viruses. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's another virus out there

[edit]

the youareanidiot virus. its available on windows. (i dont know about macs) but what it does is displays three smiley faces and says over it: you are an idiot. to stop this virus in windows 7, right click and click "loop" on the menu but that will give you errors. if you don't loop, you'll get a BSOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NylonKittyJr (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switched tabs?

[edit]

The content in the tabs for "Isolation Date" seems to be in the "Isolation" tab, and i'm not sure what is meant by "Isolation" at all here, in any case, i don't know how to fix it (if it's actually broken), but i wanted to make a note of it for those who are a bit more experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedra (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the table got all sorts of messed up because someone deleted the "subtype" tab, and subsequent attempts at fixes worked with what was there, rather than repairing what was not. i've restored it (i think) to former glory. k kisses 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of computer viruses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouAreAnIdiot

[edit]

Someone could put this virus in the article? 167.250.71.36 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_computer_viruses&oldid=1243259096"