Talk:List of trojan horses

Hmm
There are probably thousands of different trojan horses. Some which not widely used etc, some custom written etc, some maybe not in wild, etc...

The link at the bottom megasecurity.org seems to lead to a fake site or something. Not enough info. can somebody look at it.
 * The link seems to be valid, I found a list of trojans on the website. Though the doesnt give a professional impression and dont look very good, maybe it could be replaced with a more serious site. -- Frap 03:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it even possible to make a complete list of trojans? New ones are constantly released, and if you're looking for a specific one you'd check its article, not a list. Delete? --Stretch 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that this is an encyclopedia and not a computer help site, I'd say only the most notable trojans should be listed. 24.126.199.129 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon virus?
I read this one thing, I think it was from a World magazine publication, that was about this one trojan that I think was called Pokemon.exe that spread through email. It was supposed to be a Pokemon video game but when people ran it it messed up their computers.

Also, there's another nasty trojan called BIONES that pretends to be an Emulator for the Nintendo Entertainment System but instead messes up Windows XP machines. --69.243.255.130 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The list doesn't seem to be in any logical order. It starts with a few trojans which mostly have their own articles, then has a massive list of ones that don't, in alphabetical order, most of which start with an a. Is it really worth listing so many which don't even have an article?81.98.39.243 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I think about deleting article maybe... -- Frap 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Back Orifice
The back orifice is an administrative program, not a trojan horse and should be deleted off the list as with BO2k. Just because people misuse it, doesn't mean it should be labeled as a trojan. Sir Dystic wanted to create a program that would show cracks in someones administrative programs, which was why he coded the program the way it is. It was NEVER meant to be used as a backdoor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warrush (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I think of maybe delete whole article, there are countless of trojans, and only Sub7 and Netbus are notable. -- Frap 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Warrush 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ONLY KNOWN
Warrush 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Ok guys, i took off all trojans but kept the ones that were known. Plz help me update it with only known trojans.

edit- Well i guess they won't let me, oh well someone needs to take off all the trojans that don't have an article attached to them. I've had trojans like PSW.Generic4.MNS, and Generic5.JMY.--The source of the cosmos... 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I added a cleanup temp. All the un-articled trojans need to be taken off. I can't do it as a bot will revert me everytime. War  rush  13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sound Clips
Hey evry1, I once downloaded a .exe from messengertools.net and Norton said that it was a trojan! So I got it removed.

I downloaded something called 'Sound Clips'...

I forget the name of the file. Just be warned...!--Rocket Media (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed a listing of iTunes 7.7. iTunes is a valid application, and 7.7 is a valid version. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

February 2009
This list is totally inrelavent and completely outdated and just plainly wrong. How are you going to classify the millions of trojans? And which vendor's detections are you going by? I've seen trojans by Vendor "A" detected as a "worm" by Vendors "B" and "C", just for example. And there are too many generic detections that can be used to detect a zero-day trojan. Those should be removed. Or, this article should be deleted as this quest is fruitless. TechOutsider (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Ched (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues (moved from top)

 * Which vendor's detections are we relying on? As I stated earlier, Vendor "A" can have completely different detections from Vendors "B" and "C". Are we going by Symantec's classification? Kaspersky? NOD32? Avira?????!!!!!!!
 * Continuing on that point: Today's polymorphic viruses can contain many characteristics of several different kinds of malware. Take conflicker. It's a worm first of all; it attacks network shares. It also is an exploit; it exploits a vulnerability in the server service. It also does a host of other "bad" things, such as modify the hosts files, etc. etc. A "bad" hacker could easily obtain a copy of Confliker (I did too), and modify it to his pleasing, maybe adding rootkit like abilities. Then, there would be at least 3 classifications ... Vendors "A" saying rootkit, "B" saying exploit, and "C" saying conflicker.

This list of pointless unless we reach a consensus on who's definition to trust. Or, we could cross reference the detections ... however AV-test has already done that here

The above is not just theoretical; it's real. I have ran across a plethora of malware samples that overlap categories and vendors disagreeing over detections.


 * Also, what do we do about generic detections? Are they of importance? They can be used to detect a plethora of malware as well, not just trojans.

We must reach a consensus on the above; otherwise I see good reason to delete this pointless article. And that's considering the "imperfect" clause at the beginning of the article. Thanks for hearing me out. I apologize for the tone; I am not angry. TechOutsider (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Techoutsdier

moved the above thread from top of page. — Ched (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge Consensus
Anyone who is moving any of these to the timeline article, please do a strike-through or note it, so we're not duplicating each others work. I'll start moving (if it's not already done) on Sunday. thx — Ched (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Any further discussion on the "List of Trojan horses" should be directed here — Ched (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)