So you think Virus is silly?

[Marcatlas]

Respectfully, I posit a mere 1 per 100 million population. That would equate to only 3 or 4 POSSIBLE in the US based on our population. Less than that by a factor of ten makes the existence of such a group impossible at the population of the Earth. The fact that they DID EXIST means the numbers cannot be THAT far off.

There are almost 8 Billion people. Even if I am off by a factor of 10 (in which case such a group never existed and there was only a 30% of even 1 individual in the US - hardly a group) then there are still about 8 people in the world.

There are currently less than that writing viruses. It's been many years since a new one has been seen.

 

[mike wightman]

Not relevant. Cyberwarfare doesn't rely on viruses. It relies of other types of malware and computer attacks. Most of the successful attacks (~80%) rely on exploitable memory errors in code. Hence the push from the White House on down for memory safe coding languages to be used. I consulted a company last year helping launch their product that is used to recompile source code to make it memory safe when running. Without needing to find the memory flaws in the source code.

Viruses are still very much a part of cyberwarfare. Sounds more like you are changing terminology to deny the existence of government sponsored cyberwarfare units - both military and "intelligence service", not to mention the various anarcho-hacker groups.

 

[Marcatlas]

Viruses are still very much a part of cyberwarfare. Sounds more like you are changing terminology to deny the existence of government sponsored cyberwarfare units - both military and "intelligence service", not to mention the various anarcho-hacker groups.

Nope, I am using CORRECT and precise terminology. VERY correct. You are using incorrect terminology.

 

[mike wightman]

There are currently less than that writing viruses. It's been many years since a new one has been seen.

You and I have no idea how many are working within the military or security services doing this, nor will we see the next Stuxnet until it does its thing

 

[mike wightman]

Nope, I am using CORRECT and precise terminology. VERY correct. You are using incorrect terminology.

In what way? Serious question I am not trying to be snarky. What makes you think military et al cyberwarfare units are not writing anything similar?

 

[Marcatlas]

In what way? Serious question I am not trying to be snarky. What makes you think military et al cyberwarfare units are not writing anything similar?

In what the definition of a computer VIRUS is. Also, STUXNET wasn't even a computer virus it was a worm that exploited several known flaws in installed s/w including a zero day exploit in Siemens PLC. All I CAN say is that they aren't being written and used in the wild right now.

 

[whartung]

I guess we need formal defintions of VIRUS, WORM, MALWARE, EXPLOIT, and other terms of art so folks can stop talking past each other.

 

[Marcatlas]

There already are exact definitions. They have existed for almost a quarter of a century. You can probably find them listed on an Antivirus company website or Wiki. Or if you know a real IT Sec person ask to have them tell you.

Computer virus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mike wightman]

Thank you that is exactly what I needed. So malware is the catch all term and then the various subgroups.

Researchers tend to classify malware into one or more sub-types i.e. computer viruses, worms, Trojan horses, ransomware, spyware, adware, rogue software, wiper and keyloggers.

 

[Marcatlas]

Thank you that is exactly what I needed. So malware is the catch all term and then the various subgroups.

Yes, the term "malware" was coined late in the game. After all the other major types had been classified by the AV industry.

 

[mike wightman]

Well that was a very interesting rabbit hole you just dropped me in. I now have a greater, albeit still very layman, knowledge of cyber conflict.
So Stuxnet should really be described as a worm rather than virus...

which brings me back to TNE Virus, is it better described as a malefic AI worm.

 

[Marcatlas]

Well that was a very interesting rabbit hole you just dropped me in. I now have a greater, albeit still very layman, knowledge of cyber conflict.
So Stuxnet should really be described as a worm rather than virus...

which brings me back to TNE Virus, is it better described as a malefic AI worm.

Hard to tell because by the description in the rules it operates by "magic". Meaning it cannot exist in the real world as described and it is able to exist outside of code. It is more a life-form by description.

 

[mike wightman]

No, it doesn't exist outside of code.

 

[Marcatlas]

No, it doesn't exist outside of code.

According to the description I remember. Infiltrating via radio communication.

 

[Condottiere]

Apparently, air gapping doesn't work anymore.

 

[Marcatlas]

Apparently, air gapping doesn't work anymore.

 

[mike wightman]

According to the description I remember. Infiltrating via radio communication.

You mean like software downloaded over wi-fi, or bluetooth?

 

[Marcatlas]

You mean like software downloaded over wi-fi, or bluetooth?

Nope! Not at all. Radio receivers are NOT that. Not equipped to handle, store and execute ANY code of ANY type. That is why those with any IT knowledge have said from Day 1 that "Virus" was magic.

 

[mike wightman]

Digital radio/TV receivers, just like wi-fi and bluetooth can be used to download malware. Malware has been introduced to Samsung TVs via satellite TV systems for example.
A quick google search on digital radio malware is pretty informative.

 

[Marcatlas]

Digital radio/TV receivers, just like wi-fi and bluetooth can be used to download malware. Malware has been introduced to Samsung TVs via satellite TV systems for example.
A quick google search on digital radio malware is pretty informative.

I'm not going to argue this with someone who doesn't know how computers and programs function. Comm radios aren't and will not be designed to read, load, store, compile and then side load into a computer that they wouldn't have write privileges to much less execute privileges with, much less have a direct connection to. Any more that I wold argue that one can stealth a spaceship running a fusion generator with someone who doesn't understand the basic physics of the problem. As it was written it's magic. An analogy would be to say that someone came up with a new blend of LOX & Lhyd so when put into a rocket it propels the thing at 100 X C.