On 21 Mar 2000, at 20:05, Jim Meagher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The kak WORM (not a virus) is not new, ....

e-mail worms/viruses including the KAK worm/virus marginally meet the
definition of both a worm and a virus.

More correctly, if you look at how a worm and a virus are defined in
different sources related to viruses, you will see different definitions.
It is well agreed that a virus is a code that has to have the ability to
secretly and intentionaly replicate and spread.
You will see that all definitions of a worm agrees that it moves secretly
through networks.
Kak and other e-mail viruses/worms have those features mentioned
above.
In SOME of the definitions of a worm, the worm does not replicate
uncontrollably. This feature is not met by e-mail viruses/worms.
In SOME definitions of a virus, the virus has to attach itself to some
legitimate code as a parasite. The e-mail virus/worm usually does not
meet this nature either.

I think that at the moment, it will be fair to allow calling them either
e-mail viruses, or e-mail worms as they marginally meet both definitions.

You may see more on
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/
(I'm based my comment here, also on a book named "Pathology of
computer viruses" that I read sometimes ago, and that I don't remember
the name of its author).

Uzi

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html