Jump to content

Talk:Macro virus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 29 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Section request

[edit]

Could we have a quick section describing what file formats are likely to contain macros? I wanted to know if an html file (written with a software application) might contain macro viruses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.222.198 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon response to request above: HTML attack is simiar to macro attack, but is actually a scripting attack (e.g., typically JavaScript), not founded in document macros, so this should probably be mentioned and refer to another article.

Also, I suggest the article be renamed "Document Macro Attack" since "Macro virus" is, IMHO, misleading. The document macro attack is not by nature, contageous, as implied by the word "virus." A document macro is simply a way to automate functions available in the software application that opens a document (e.g., Ms-Word for files with .doc/.docx extensions). Doc macro execution in document application software (such as Office 365 stuff-- word, etc.) is a software vulnerability, because it can be used to attack a computer if a document uses a macro to run a command that calls an executable file with malicious intent (such as to leak or damage data, or provide remote command + control), which would qualify such a document as malware. The software itself has a vulnerability but is NOT malware, and not all documents with macros are malware-- just those with macros that use app function calls that cause harm. It can be argued whether docs that cause unintentional harm qualify as "malware," but that might be splitting hairs, as in: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not murder.

BTW, I support Wikipedia with donations. I would contribute to Wikipedia content in a more significant way than the occasional minor edit or suggestion, but after investing 10 hours doing research and editing to significantly enhance an article, I was rewarded with a good attempt kudo, and the article was redacted to its inferior state, so why bother?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.107.11 (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

[edit]

Needs links to macro virus and needs example source code.

Also documentation on the method of the exploits would be nice.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PP Protection, Orig, Source

[edit]

Hi User:The Anome a few things, 1. I think a years protection for one ip user (2 different addresses though) is a bit of an overkill. 2. Can you note what appears to be original research, so I can view and find sources or correct?. 3. I see request for source type doc, not sure we should show this, but easily found really. 4. I see a request for document/application type and function, as per above, not sure we should show this, but easily found really 5. We should also cover system changes at io (op system) level, that now stops such thing as assuming system volume control at macro level, where and when it was allowed macro viruses were most prevalent. FYI I used to write "joke macros" which technically a virus, mine were never malicious though, but soure was available as such and could of been modified for "other purposes". Thoughts121.99.108.78 (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]