Message-ID: <42FBE194.28127.93283171@localhost>
Date: Thu Aug 11 12:40:06 2005
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Re: Help put a stop to incompetent computer
	forensics

Jason Coombs to Donald J. Ankney:

> > Your definition is just a subset of the standard, broader one. 

Indeed, that is the case.

Had Jason spent a few seconds looking into the real history of the use 
of the word, its current "expert use" and its slippery, moving from 
year to year, "common" usage he would have recognized his pathetic 
attempts to justify his position for precisely what they are.

Apparently that is too much like hard work for this self-styled top 
member of the computer forensics expert opinion witness industry 
though, so the rest of us are apparently expected (by that uber-elite 
class which Jason puts himself so high and mightily atop) to take 
Jason's word for things just because ill-educated, lazy, common use has 
changed, the experts should too...

> When a word causes widespread misunderstanding such that you simply 
> can't use it to communicate ideas clearly, the old meaning becomes 
> archaic.  ...

Utter twaddle.

It is now, and has been almost since there was a "computer antivirus 
industry", the case that any-, and every-, thing "bad" that happens to 
a computer is labelled as a "virus" by the great unwashed.

Fortunately, communication among computer professionals has largely 
resisted adopting this sloppy usage, and "virus" still has a fairly 
specific, fairly well and widely accepted technical meaning, at least 
within the community of computer security professionals.

Such is also still the case with the word "Trojan", so if Jason is out 
of touch with that meaning, what does that tell us about Jason's 
reputed superior computer security expertise?  If it's sadly lacking on 
an important terminological issue, what else has he missed out on?

The computer security meaning of "Trojan" as something along the lines 
of "a bad program disguised or passed-off as something good, desirable 
or at least harmless" is still the usage of intelligent, informed 
computer security folk in my extensive experience.  Sure, within some 
contexts some of those same folk will drop into a usage something more 
like that of the vulgar, uneducated masses (many of whom use "Trojan" 
and "virus" AND "hacker" totally interchangeably), but that is usually 
obvious to other informed, intelligent and experienced professionals 
from contextual (linguistic, situational, etc) cues.

> ...  I think that's what has happened with Trojan.  ...

No -- it has happened to very many commonly used comp-sec terms that 
have been "overused" by too many of the less-well-informed in the media 
and thence by the general public.  As I said above, it is now 
widespread and common to find "ordinary folk" who use two or more of 
"hacker", "Trojan" and "virus" _interchangeably_.  However, not only 
does that mean we (comp-sec professionals) SHOULD NOT adopt such slack 
usage, at least when communicating within our professional circles, it 
means we should RESIST IT.  Taking what are, at the technical level of 
our expertise, inherently and importantly different concepts for which 
there are terms with well-established meanings and uses and smooshing  
them all together simply because what we know and understand as 
different concepts, and represent by those different words, is "too 
arcane", or "too deep", or "too detailed", or "too technical", or 
whatever, for the everyday communications of "the people in the street" 
is the ultimate intellectual slackness.  It is not snobbish to remain 
intellectually precise and to treasure meaningfully distinct conceptual 
notions, though it can seem thus if one always insists on trying to 
enforce those distinctions at a conversational level where they are 
irrelevant or unimportant.

So, if you're talking to Joe and Jane Bloggs, use "trojan" in a loose, 
slack, folksy way that they will "understand", but if you're going to 
stick your head up in a mailing list like this and boldly, and clearly 
very ignorantly given the last 20+ years usage of the term by this 
constituency and its founders, state that black is white, expect to 
have the top of your head knocked off and what has previously passed 
for your intellect pecked to pieces...

> ...  Proof of this can 
> be found in the list of malware that anti-Trojan software is designed to 
> detect ...

That's a f*cking joke, right?

Give me a break, puhlease!

If this is an example of the kind of argument you make in those trials 
you play "expert opinion witness" in, I must assume they are real laugh-
a-minute affairs to any real experts present...

> ... -- without double-checking this, just from memory, I'm going to 
> say that the list of malware detected by the typical anti-Trojan 
> software product is limited to malware that meets my definition and does 
> not include the broader definition.  ...

Many (most, probably all now, and for quite some time) of these 
products also detect some examples of many other pieces and types of 
(static-binary and/or other "characteristically odd" detection, e.g. by 
distinctive registry entry) malware, including many viruses.

So, perhaps on this basis we _should_ conflate "virus" and "Trojan"??

Hmmmmm...

> ...  That causes a real problem, in 
> practice, since if the anti-Trojan doesn't stop spyware then how can 
> spyware be a Trojan?

Had you considered it may be because your so-called "anti-Trojan" is 
NOT actually anti-Trojan?

D'oh!

Grab a brain for a few moments and consider some MORE history you are 
obviously lacking...

So-called "anti-Trojan" software was _initially_ developed to detect 
what are more specifically known as "remote access Trojans" (or RATs, 
sometimes also called "remote access trapdoors", "remote control 
Trojans" and so on).  (The motivation for this was that RATs were 
running rampant via chat network distribution, especially IRC, and 
mainly were not being detected by AV, whose developers were largely not 
interested in such malware at the time.)  The particular community that 
used and developed most of this software adopted the use of the term 
"Trojan" as a shortcut for "remote access Trojan" (and possibly because 
it was largely ignorant of the much larger and broader history of "all 
Trojanic software") simply because the main kinds of trojans they 
happened to see, and thus were interested in, were RATs.

>From the most vaguely purist of positions, that was wrong and lazy,  
and eventually calling themselves "anti-Trojan" to specifically 
distinguish these products from anti_virus_ products was clearly a 
marketing move.  With marketing generally being renowned for its abject 
lack of care for precision and accuracy, I doubt any intellectual 
discussion of the meaning of term is likely to be much interested, far 
less swayed, by the opinions of mere marketeers...  In short, your 
argument that the rest of us should adopt their (and apparently also 
your) wrong and lazy usage of "Trojan" is symptomatic of why that usage 
ever gained any currency in the first place...

(It's also somewhat of a circular argument to claim that the self-
servingly and incorrectly named "anti-Trojan" software only detects RAT-
like Trojans so therefore "Trojan" means "RAT", but that should be 
obvious even to Jason by now...)

I put it to you "mister computer forensics expert opinion" that you are 
not only doing the word a dis-service, but your own reputed expertise, 
experience and relaevant (historical) knowledge of this whole sub-field 
of computer security is now showing as more than slightly lacking...

I have close to 20 years "professional interest" in these matters and, 
to a person, the very many educated and informed academic and industry 
commentators I have seen and heard discuss this have never defined 
"Trojan" as you claim it must now be used "because that is the 'common' 
usage".  Perhaps that means you hang with too many "too common" folk 
and would better hone your skills and understanding by moving in more 
intellectually high-brow circles?

Whatever, just take a bit of a reality check on this one -- you are 
clearly wrong given the weight (and vehemence) of reaction to your 
posts, so stop the verbal m@...rbation and get on with something 
useful, eh?


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

Powered by blists - more mailing lists