Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Why "worm" instead of "germ"
Keywords: virus vs. worm
Message-ID: <4495@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 20:57:39 GMT
References: <1476@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <76929@looking.on.ca> <77443@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 23

In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting
>itself into another program, why the term "worm?"
>Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."  It would infect a system,
>and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself.
>Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them.

A "germ" or "bacterium" generally infects cells, or other such stuff.  It is
not very offensive (tactical sense):  it does not move about, and will only
infect other "systems" through chance.  The person who released the worm
actively sought out other systems, therefore it doesn't count as a passive
organism.

Make sense?  How about this, also:  it was considerably more complex than a
computer bacterium would need to be.  In reality, a bacterium is easily
destroyed, since they don't have much resistance, and can't breed fast
enough.  Worms and viruses are more complex and tougher.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "If a compiler emits correct code purely by divine guidance
seanf@sco.COM    |  and has no memory at all, it can still be a C compiler."
(408) 458-1422   |           -- Chris Torek (chris@cs.umd.edu)
-----------------+ Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.