Is Spyware a VIRUS? (poll)
 

Now that many of the activist-hackers of the early 90's have grown up and discovered it's even cooler to have a 9,000 square foot home and a Ferrari than "changing the world" with CODED MESSAGES ever was, we're in a position to understand the recent harmful innovations in MARKETING that now plague all our machines as the intelligent evolution of Virus Craft in a less (intentionally) destructive direction, towards good-old-fashion make-a-buck-in-any-way-you-can-get-away-with Entrepreneurialsm.

What do YOU think -- should spyware distributors fall subject to the same (morally-supported) penalties as traditional Bug Makers?


j-

Yes


....

I voted yes - it does stuff to your pc which you don't want it to do, but its less dangerous compaired to other virus types.

No, i wouldnt consider it a "virus" unless it replicates itself and spreads itsself without your permission

How many computer noobies have had to take their computer to a shop and pay to get it fixed because of spyware? Yes, it's a virus.

if anything, it's malware, not a virus....

yes I think.....

Spyware are not virii. The difference is in the technical definition - they are very different animals.

I think the penalties should be the same. You release a virus, or install spyware, you should go to jail.

Yes it is

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6

I'm no expert on computers. Both viruses and spyware seem to have the same effect on my computer. They make it inoperable. A virus is intended to caues problems. But when there is enough spyware on my computer it eventually freezes and can't be used either.

nortons considers them viruses, who am I to argue?

After spending several days trying to remove one particular spyware app, I can say that although they are not viruses (in their effects) - they are about as big of a pain. There ought to be a law.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Just rum Housecall if you have a problem it usually finds it and fixes it for you.

yes it is.

Spyware is a virus. There. I said it. Spyware loads without the user's permission, it runs invasive processes and it will eventually burn down your machine. Look around, and you will find anti-virus software vendors beginning to address the spyware problem by adding modules to their products, which, of course, cost extra since they don't consider spyware a virus. The anti-virus vendors' dictionaries are woefully inadequate, stopping less than 50 percent of the parasites. To really put a dent in the current spyware/virus problem, it would require loading three or more separate spyware clients, where each product's dictionary identifies spyware that the others had missed.

-- By Brett Arquette
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1683485,00.asp

unless it replicates itself, it's not a virus. It's more of a disease than anything

By definition it is not a virus.

More like a parasite.

most if not all do exactly that

someone with a clue here

bringer, can you mention a couple since you are talking about "most"

What the hell do you think spyware does genius?

its like AIDS

Well, I voted yet but I think its yes and no...I think there are two kinds of spyware...

1) The kind that software such as Kazaa tell you they are installing on your computer in order to run the free version. You're warned, you accept.....later on you end up throwing your computer away because you cant get rid of the damn GAIN software...but you DID give them the okay

2) The kind that automatically installs through IE loopholes. These are viruses in everyway.....And I got news, its nothing new! Viruses for the life of them have in large part been NON-DAMAGING to your system and just told the originator what you were doing on your computer....Some of them tracked key strokes...some tracked websites...Now they are calling it spyware...i think of it as just another sub-classification of a virus

considering tools are required to remove spyware which has been installed on my system without my knowledge or permission, id consider that example accurate. the ones that ive encountered which have an uninstall option such as gator magically reappear after a reboot or dont uninstall at all.

additionally they rob system resources sometimes making the systems unusable without a cleanup. i dont see a difference in a gator that opens up 15 processes and causes IE and other programs to load slow and often crash and a virus that does the same thing without storing and sending information to a company.

I think it's important though to be fair to distinguish between spyware, adware and viruses. Each are not wholly alike but can have the same effect on your computer.

I am against anything that the user cannot easily get off of their machine. However, I'm all for anything that is a cost of using a free product.

I'm not one to download free aps of any kind because I'm not interested in dealing with the repurcussions of add on software in a download.

However, ADWARE which is often lumped into the spyware category is differentiated as it is more easily removable and it is dispersed by companies who make no bones about the fact that they are putting this on your machine. Gator, now Claria has paid the price for irresponsbile use of their software a few years ago, things are better now and the companies that continue to use adware are doing so responsibly.

The shit that clogs your computer is typically not the product of one of the good guys. It's some foreign hack who's making a penny everytime an ad pops on your screen.

If it's malicious, invasive, difficult or impossible to remove I hate it. However, if to use FREE smileys you must have a piece of software on your computer I have no problem with it. I guess it comes down to knowledge and ease of removal and non-invasive practices by the supporting company.

I think people are quite clear on this issue...


If they ask you if you want to install and provide proper uninstaller...No complaints


Load it on my PC without telling me though.....And I'll sue the crap out of ya

A lot of confused people. Malicious software that replicates and redistributes itself is a virus. Anything else IS NOT although it can be a major pain in the ass and the writers need jail terms (or public flogging will suffice).

Well, it looks like most of you are leaning in the "yes" direction, albeit with a few qualifications.

Most agreed that in circumstances where the effect of the software was the inoperability of the device (or the introduction of meaningful inconvenience into the operation) -- and therefore HARM -- you'd condemn it.

But many of you focused on the manner of distribution and the intentions of the distributors as differentiating factors. I think you missed the point of the poll. Let me ask the question another way: Do you think that the questionable ethics and inarguably harmful effects of Spyware should be dealt with (by the Law) in a manner similar to the treatment to Virus Makers?

EroticySteve raises a good point:

Agreed. If you want something for free (like broadcast TV), you should expect to allow for the subsidy of that value by parties interested in selling you things.

The problem is, the disclosure is terrible and the understanding of the average user of what will actually happen on their computer after they check the "Accept" box is very low.

Clearly, we're dealing with a broad spectrum of activities here -- that includes certain practices, it seems, we're all agreed are BAD, but, more disturbingly, that also includes a fuzzy area in the middle, where we're not so sure...

Follow me here:


1. You blow up a bank, you go to jail.

2. You stick-up a bank, you go to jail.

3. You embezzle money electronically from a bank, you go to jail.

4. You stand in front of a bank (ostensibly giving away lemonade samples), but then harass customers as they enter, stuff business cards in their pockets they don't want, follow them home, take over the TV remote control, tell them who they can talk to on the phone and who they can't, invite your friends over and make a mess...

:)


Disclosure ethics and effect of harm.


j-

So, you are saying spyware is like fucking a crack whore, you know you will probably get sick, but opt to fuck her anyway?

Correct. The main definition for viruses is SELF-REPLICATION. This is a stupid poll. Like "is a knife in my ass a virus?" The answer will the the same: "yes, it's a harmful thing, but it's NOT a virus!"

Felony
Felony

Felony

Possible misdemeanor (trespassing)

Just looke over the poll results. Seems that 65.79% of ppl here know nothing about obvious things... The overal GFY education level sux. Very sad :(

Doesn't spyware install itself (replicate) on a target computer? It even needs a "carrier" such as the host website to infect another. How is that not "virus" like?

Feeling cloud reality..

The answer to that question is found very easily in the definition of the word no poll needed so i think people answering the poll take into account its obvious it doesnt fit into the pre-established meaning of virus.. But then again a computer virus doesnt really fit into the definiton of a virus

YES (it is install itself like any other proggie such as IE) and NO (it doesn't replicate it self like real viruses and even worms).

A lot of programs need a "carrier", such as ICQ you are using, or EVEN Microsoft Windows.

See the answers above. :winkwink:

K. That makes sense. A virus, by definition, inserts itself into a host program. Spyware is a standalone program.

You're a smart man, Smokey.

Everything has a pretty clear definition: virus, worm, spyware, adware etc.

Still not correct! The main ability of virus is the ability replicate itself, i.e. infect other applications, and then... other computers.

I agree completely

RTFM bro

I think it is, it fucks with your internet connection, slows the computer down, might as well just be a fucking virus.

Yes, I might be a virus, as well as it might be an anti-virus, firewall, some server (say apache, mysql etc) or anything else. Good point! :upsidedow

I'm giving up on this discussion. I did a quick search for the phrase "is spyware a virus" and by some people's definition it's not: "By definition no. A virus is intended to harm a computer or network. Spyware is intended to track for advertising purposes."

And I know what cyberxxx is trying to say about the whole "replication" thing as spyware doesn't replicate itself from one computer to another.

Fuck all that nonesense.

It enters a system, unknowingly and unwillingly and by every account "infects" that system. Whatever someone wants to call it, it's a pain in the ass.

:2 cents:

Not correct again. Virus may not harm your computer at all! Some viruses are absolutely harmless, however they have the ability to replicate themselves.

Hey guys, don't try to discuss with a professional system programmer :winkwink:

I know how to write a virus, I know how to write a worm, and I know how to write a spayware. I just don't write them because I'm not crazy. Period.

Hmmm... maybe, OR...


Fraud (misrepresentation of commercial intent) = Felony


Assault* (uninvited trespass of the "body) = Felony *(Obviously not a physical assualt in this metaphor, but the e-equivalent, which would be invasive, aggressive entry with the intent to steal or harm)


:question


The approriate law to address the issue here does NOT YET exist, which is among the reasons I wanted to go through this exercise.

We're facing activities here that are (I think we all agree on this point) crossing lines beyond which the law SHOULD get involved.

What I have discovered by reading the posts in this thread is that many of you ARE distracted enough by the technical differences between Viruses and Spyware to be UNABLE to consider the comparison I intended -- based on effect, not infection vector.

The reason I posed the question as I did is not because I don't understand the difference between the different types of programs -- I do, as well as any of you, I assure you.

The reason I framed the comparison as such is simply because in the case of "Viruses", we (all of us, as prospective plaintiffs) can immediately benefit from the fact that the law has both precedent of action and scope of inclusion, across a broad range of cases. So that if and when we decide we've had enough of what Spyware distributors are doing (and getting away with in the guise of e-marketing), we can rely on the understanding of DENIAL OF SERVICE we have achieved via the pursuit and prosecution of Hackers and e-Virologists. But, to do that, we have to begin to separate the method from the effects.

Let me leave you with this link to the FCC Web site. If I were a prosecuting lawyer, looking for root precedents that I might apply to make a case against someone who had "taken over the TV remote control, and [told me] who [I] can talk to on the phone and who [I] can't..."

I would think of ways to applying this FCC violation to our medium -- Section 301. And that, my friend IS a felony.


j-

Ok, a knife in your back (ass) is also a VIRUS!!! Need more reasons? Ok, here they are:
1) Fuck all that nonesense.
2) It (a knife) enters your body, unknowingly (sometimes you can't see a killer behind you) and unwillingly (no one will willingly put a knife into his back) and by every account "infects" that body.
3) Whatever someone wants to call it, it's a pain in the ass (sure I think that a knife in the ass could cause a real pain :1orglaugh)

well, to be honest, after I made my post I thought about it a little and decided that if I wanted to press the issue I guess kidnapping could be involved in your 4th scenario as well . . . but did not fell it was part of the discussion . . . you got the idea, it is just the level of the crime

Computer Virus is a program or piece of computer code that is installed or executed onto any computing device without the knowledge of the owner and runs against the owner's wishes. Most computer viruses will disrupt or alter the normal operation of the infected computer. Some computer viruses are destructive, permanently damaging data files or programs on a computer.

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/IT/policy/definitions.aspx

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Spyware can closely resemble computer viruses, but with some important differences. Many spyware programs install without the user's knowledge or consent. In both cases, system instability commonly results.

A virus, however, replicates itself: it spreads copies of itself to other computers if it can. Spyware generally does not self-replicate. Whereas a virus relies on users with poor security habits in order to spread, and spreads so far as possible in an unobtrusive way (in order to avoid detection and removal), spyware usually relies on persuading ignorant or credulous users to download and install itself by offering some kind of bait. For example, one typical spyware program targeted at children, Bonzi Buddy, claims that:

He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's FREE! [1] (http://www.bonzi.com/bonzibuddy/bonzimail.asp)
A typical piece of spyware installs itself in such a way that it starts every time the computer boots up (using CPU cycles and RAM, and reducing stability), and runs at all times, monitoring Internet usage and delivering targeted advertising to the affected system. It does not, however, attempt to replicate onto other computers ? it functions as a parasite but not as an infection. [2] (http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?id=512)

A virus generally aims to carry a payload of some kind. This may do some damage to the user's system (such as, for example, deleting certain files), may make the machine vulnerable to further attacks by opening up a "back door", or may put the machine under the control of malicious third parties for the purposes of spamming or denial-of-service attacks. The virus will in almost every case also seek to replicate itself onto other computers. In other words, it functions not only as a parasite, but as an infection as well.

The damage caused by spyware, in contrast, usually occurs incidentally to the primary function of the program. Spyware generally does not damage the user's data files; indeed (apart from the intentional privacy invasion and bandwidth theft), the overwhelming majority of the harm inflicted by spyware comes about simply as an unintended by-product of the data-gathering or other primary purpose.

A virus does deliberate damage (to system software, or data, or both); spyware does accidental damage (usually only to the system software). In general, neither one can damage the computer hardware itself (but see CIH virus). Certain special circumstances aside, in the worst case the user will need to reformat the hard drive, reinstall the operating system and restore from backups. This can prove expensive in terms of repair costs, lost time and productivity. Instances have occurred of owners of badly spyware-infected systems purchasing entire new computers in the belief that an existing system "has become too slow." Technicians who hear complaints about a computer "slowing down" (as opposed to "becoming outdated") should probably suspect spyware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware...re_and_viruses

While spyware and virus carry slightly different definitions they are spoken about under the same breath.