WinPC Defener (fake antivirus) removal

  • Thread starter Thread starter dfinc
  • Start date Start date
David said:
Wrong at the first line !
Do you mean it is wrong because it is a supposed to be an anti-spyware
program and not an anti-virus program and it is a trojan itself, or because
he misspelled appears? :)
 
Buffalo said:
Do you mean it is wrong because it is a supposed to be an
anti-spyware
program and not an anti-virus program and it is a trojan itself, or
because
he misspelled appears? :)

It does not recursively self-replicate.
 
It does not recursively self-replicate.

It doesn't have to recursively self-replicate. A virus must replicate
intentionally. It doesn't have to infect more than a file from a current
folder and it's still a virus. :) The OP is wrong calling the program a
virus, as it's nothing more than a trojan.
 
Dustin Cook said:
@news.eternal-september.org:


It doesn't have to recursively self-replicate. A virus must replicate
intentionally. It doesn't have to infect more than a file from a
current
folder and it's still a virus. :) The OP is wrong calling the program
a
virus, as it's nothing more than a trojan.

Not file system recursion, replication recursion. If the offspring can't
replicate, the parent did not virally infect their hosts with functional
copies of itself and therefore has failed as a virus. Sometimes called a
'failed virus' it is no more than a trojan. True, it only takes one
viable offspring to qualify - you don't have to virally infect more than
once, succesfully.
 
Back
Top