"Wolf K" wrote:

> I fail to see why a file needs a name etc, and needs to be found by a
> file manager, in order to be a "true" file.

Because that's pretty much the definition of a file.

> In fact, I think this usage
> misleads people, as the Subject of this thread the subsequent discussion
> illustrates.

Not at all.

> Of course the malware consists of files.

Initially, yes.

> If you think these
> files are somehow not files, it may be difficult for you to understand
> a) how they can do their evil work; and b) how they can be destroyed.

The average user is computer-illiterate. Misnaming things like the
bios and mbr code as files doesn't help.

> Granted, in common usage "file" means "a block of data with a name,
> locatable by the OS". In most contexts, this is the proper usage.

In all contexts.

> But
> when it comes to malware that hides from the OS, it is IMO bad usage. In
> such contexts, nit-picking insistence on technical precision is important.

If nit-picking is important then you should know the difference
between files and other objects.

Actually, this malware lives in the registry, the registry is
contained in a set of files but it's not helpful to think of the
malware as a file. It's not hiding from the OS or a knowlegeable user
who knows about registry autorun keys.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2