Tell then Bontchev that his assertion is sheer nonsense!
How do you explain that no info sheet from a serious AV producer contains a
category named Trojan-virus (or virus-Trojan), and every and any malware in
either categories is either classified as the one, or the other, but never as
both?
Apparently, it's at at least partially due to the penchant some have
to insist on exclusivity. Why they feel the need to identify some
malware as _only_ one type is beyond. me. It just leads to confusion.
OTOH, I see no need for a term like Trojan-virus. Replicative code
that satisfies a good definition of "virus" can simply be called a
virus. No need to get involved in that case with the subjective
judgements involved with Trojan definitions. It simply goes without
saying that most often inclusivity is involved ... that a virus
presents itself to the user as something it is not ...(or some other
suitable Trojan definition) .... and therefore it's also a Trojan.
Seems to me the av companies do just that. If a sample of malicious
code meets the definition of virus it's called a virus. Period. They
aren't necessarily insisting that the sample isn't also a Trojan. It's
simply that there's no need to state the obvious ... that it's
probably (but not necessarily) a Trojan as well.
Anyway, it was _your_ insistance on exclusivity (in the context of
definitions) as part of a argument that I took exception to.
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg