Talk:Computer worm

message: 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)
thread_title: Morris worm

message: 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)
thread_title: Useful page

message: "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)
thread_title: Good worms?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebooting and Worms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarify origins of term 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translating the german article? 

message: The term comes from Brunner's Shockwave Rider... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:NPOV please.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating systems 

message: 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)
replies: text: Replaced with Wayback link. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference out of date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Computer worm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[anti-worm]] article here 

message: Invokerishard (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality Sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop the madness, a Worm *is* a "Computer Virus".