Talk:Computer virus

Second reference for BRAIN Virus. This video is in English. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnedOWfPKT0

An editor has inserted a "Computer Viruses in Art" section (and commented "Don't touch the article"). Notwithstanding Wikipedia's stated policy that no one person "owns" anything (see WP:OWNER), I'm not at all sure that such a section belongs in a technical article. Per WP:BRD, I reverted the addition and am bringing it here to discuss. What does the community think about this? Thanks, everyone! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia can be used to provide information that is relevant to the topic and backed by a story. And I think that adding a section "Computer viruses in art" is not only appropriate, but also necessary, its very interesting. --Art of Odessa (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As you say, "Relevant to the topic". pretty paintings they may be, but they have no relevance or connection with subject of the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• IdreamofJeanie What do they relate to? They are made on the basis of this theme. Obviously it’s just the right place for a subsection. Do you disagree?" --Art of Odessa (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll answer that, too: I disagree. The appropriate place for these pictures (artists' renditions of his/her visualizations of computer viruses) is within a page on Computer Art (possibly in a section called "Artistic Representations of Computer Malware"). I would not insist on putting source code or other technical information related to computer viruses within that paragraph, because it doesn't belong there; likewise, I don't believe art belongs in a technical article like this one. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m very sorry that you don’t understand that everything is interconnected and you perceive the world so one-sided ... You apparently have a very boring life. I insist that this topic should be supplemented with a subsection, this is an existing fact. --Art of Odessa (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Will you please stop insulting other Wikipedia user/editors? Exhibiting bellicose behavior doesn't help your case, and engaging in ad hominem attacks against other Wikipedia editors isn't a good thing to do (see WP:NPA). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Art of Odessa What they actually relate to does not matter here. They have no link with the subject apart from their name. If I paint a flower, and then call it "Kiev/Kyiv" would it belong on the Kiev article? The section bears as much validity as my hypothetical painting. IdreamofJeanie (talk)

IdreamofJeanie These viruses are also created based on the code of each virus. --Art of Odessa (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then, as I mentioned before, they should be included in an article on Computer Art. I think it's extremely interesting the artwork was created from malware source code, but that doesn't belong in a technical article about said malware. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It says at the top of the article "Not to be confused with computer worm", and yet it uses the same image (of a computer worm) as the page Computer worm. Isn't this inadequate??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:21b:8580:1435:fa34:be42:da1f (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Creeper and Reaper worms were not viruses. This is mentioned (correctly) on the Creeper page.

Fair point. I've changed the image to a similar hex dump from ©Brain, which is historically significant. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The article also makes a claim about the economic damages cause by "viruses" as of 2013, sourced to Symantec promotional material; but this page talks almost (Nimda had other attack vectors) exclusively about ordinary worms which Symantec incorrectly describes as "viruses". As far as I can tell, the traditional attack vector of copying code into an existing executable hasn't been relevant for a very long time; there's simply no point when so many machines are constantly connected to the Internet, files are commonly transferred that way, vulnerabilities are found in all sorts of data formats, users demand scripting capabilities in places they don't belong, etc. etc. ~2025-30896-10 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is the picture for the BRAIN virus labeled "recognized as the first computer virus" when the article is full of examples of earlier viruses? 168.68.1.127 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A power virus is defined as a virus that causes a CPU to exceed its thermal design power (TDP), possibly permanently damaging it. But the linked paper uses the terms "power virus" and "stress benchmark" interchangeably: "There have been many industry efforts towards writing power viruses and stress benchmarks. Among them, MPrime [5], CPUburn-in [6], CPUburn [4] are the most popular benchmarks. We first give a brief description of these power viruses and then characterize them based on microarchitecture independent metric."

The authors also measure the power consumption of these benchmarks and their own power virus on an AMD Phenom II X4 (K10) Processor Model 945 system, with the power consumption ranging from 48.7 W to 72.5 Watts. However, the TDP of the Phenom II X4 945 is 95 W (parts HDX945WFK4DGI, HDX945WFK4DGM) or 125 W (part HDX945FBK4DGI), meaning this power consumption is within spec.

As such, I think this section should be deleted unless examples of real power viruses capable of exceeding a CPU's TDP have been documented "in-the-wild". 85.48.66.168 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Virus (computing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § Virus (computing until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)