Ant presented the following explanation :
> "FromTheRafters" wrote:
>
>> Wolf K expressed precisely :
>>> On 2015-11-26 06:40, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>   This is one major reason why some of
>>>> us like to emphasize that "virus" and "malware" are different despite
>>>> what the average Joe thinks. [...]
>>> 
>>> This is like emphasising the difference between "peach" and "fruit".
>>> Illogical.
>
> Correct, Mr Spock.
>
>>> Since "malware" includes a number different types of evil (trojans, 
>>> spyware, etc) the "average Joe" quite logically includes viruses. That's 
>>> how a normal language user decodes unfamiliar terminology.
>
>> You are, of course, welcome to think whatever you like.
>
> He's right. To the general public the word virus and malware (as we
> would say) are synonymous. They're not interested in the differences
> between a virus, worm, trojan or PUP; to them they are all viruses.
> For some reason the words "computer virus" have become the all
> encompassing term that we would call malware. Yes, "malware" does
> include viruses if you accept that viruses are malicious.
>
> WRT R Lopez's OP; it is very easy to create an executable that has a
> unique signature on every download. There is no need for any special
> encryption techniqes. One way would be to build an executable with a
> section that is never used and fill it with random data. A script on
> the server then generates a random section and puts the thing together
> when the file is requested.

Yes, I believe that I mentioned server side polymorphism. Ray asked 
about malware which encrypts its own signature as opposed to malware 
which has its encryption or other polymorphism applied from without.
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2