Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Being a curious person here, I'm NOT trying to request for viruses, I'm wondering if there are any viruses that were made for Windows 3.1.
Pokemon Master Timothy, the greatest Pokemon Brainiac since Ash Ketchum, at your service. I'm also a beginner programmer and Windows Lover!
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Sure there were Win16 viruses that infected NE-files (NewExecutable exe format). Just to name some of them: Tentacle, Vecna, Gollum, Vicodin, Odysseus, AEP and many more.alcid34 wrote:Being a curious person here, I'm NOT trying to request for viruses, I'm wondering if there are any viruses that were made for Windows 3.1.
- computebrute
- Donator
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:00 am
- Location: us
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Ach. Come on, Laddie. Haven't you seen any of Danooct1's videos on Youtube?
If viruses existed for DOS, then surely they existed for Win 3x
If viruses existed for DOS, then surely they existed for Win 3x
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Well, the virus didn't even have to touch Windows - if it killed the DOS underneath, the whole system was screwed.
All roads lead to Neptune™
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
- ExplicitNuM5
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
X)
Don't think you even need to bother infecting 3.1. 3.1 is simply a shell, it is not integrated into DOS enough to not collapse by DOS. In other words, if you delete NTOSKERN.***, you killed the boot for NT. Like what Overdoze said. (Email-Worm.Win32.loveletter has variants that also infect exe and com stuff in Windows 98, so that'll also poison Windows 98 and all that's possibly left is a ton of vbs files and Windows 98 version of DOS.)
Don't think you even need to bother infecting 3.1. 3.1 is simply a shell, it is not integrated into DOS enough to not collapse by DOS. In other words, if you delete NTOSKERN.***, you killed the boot for NT. Like what Overdoze said. (Email-Worm.Win32.loveletter has variants that also infect exe and com stuff in Windows 98, so that'll also poison Windows 98 and all that's possibly left is a ton of vbs files and Windows 98 version of DOS.)
XDA-Developers: mr_verystock
Facebook: ___ ___ng
Skype: hellohellohello148
Google +: okcn .aline
Tom's Hardware : okcnaline
OSBetaArchive: ExplicitNuM5
Facebook: ___ ___ng
Skype: hellohellohello148
Google +: okcn .aline
Tom's Hardware : okcnaline
OSBetaArchive: ExplicitNuM5
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
yes, but that wasn't the overall point of malware in those days, which was to find interesting ways to infect or otherwise mess with computers, and prove your skills to others in the vx scene (and to yourself). Creativity was an important aspect back then, well summarized in an interview with Spanska, a French virus author:Overdoze wrote:Well, the virus didn't even have to touch Windows - if it killed the DOS underneath, the whole system was screwed.
What is your view on destructive payloads in viruses?
'I really do not like that. Viruses are basically auto-reproducing programs. Destruction is something different. Users have to understand that both things are not always linked. There are two principal reasons why i will never put a destructive code inside one my viruses. First, i respect other people's work. A virus can perturb the launching of a program, well, it's not very important because you can reinstall it. But purposely and definitively destruct personal datas is a stupid and primary thing. This is my moral. Each one have his own. The second reason is that a destructive payload is too easy to code. Formatting a HD? Twenty lines of assembler, coded in one minute. Deleting a file? Five instructions. Written in one second. Easy things are not interesting for the coder. I prefer spend weeks to code a beautiful VGA effect. I prefer create than destruct. It's so important for me that i put this phrase in my MarsLand virus: "Coding a virus can be creative"'.
relevant to the OP, this virus I demoed was quite destructive (opposite of Spanska's views), but also had a neat trick for debugging purposes:
-
Lukas Marsik
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:14 pm
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
computebrute wrote:Ach. Come on, Laddie. Haven't you seen any of Danooct1's videos on Youtube?
If viruses existed for DOS, then surely they existed for Win 3x
Offtopic Comment
Can you please tone down this style of replies, taking a look at your initial posts, you were not really respecting many rules that were present on this forum though now you are just trying to be a smartass which constantly respects the rules and treats newbies asking actual questions as idiots which can't read the rules at all, this for some reason makes you think you are improving your post quality by this but you are just going from one extreme to another.
To staff: this is not meant as a flame but the posts made by computebrute are really not proper in few ways
To staff: this is not meant as a flame but the posts made by computebrute are really not proper in few ways
- ExplicitNuM5
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Mind you, does danooct1 say anything about a link to viruses aside from a defunct link (seized)?Lukas Marsik wrote:computebrute wrote:Ach. Come on, Laddie. Haven't you seen any of Danooct1's videos on Youtube?
If viruses existed for DOS, then surely they existed for Win 3xOfftopic CommentCan you please tone down this style of replies, taking a look at your initial posts, you were not really respecting many rules that were present on this forum though now you are just trying to be a smartass which constantly respects the rules and treats newbies asking actual questions as idiots which can't read the rules at all, this for some reason makes you think you are improving your post quality by this but you are just going from one extreme to another.
To staff: this is not meant as a flame but the posts made by computebrute are really not proper in few ways
XDA-Developers: mr_verystock
Facebook: ___ ___ng
Skype: hellohellohello148
Google +: okcn .aline
Tom's Hardware : okcnaline
OSBetaArchive: ExplicitNuM5
Facebook: ___ ___ng
Skype: hellohellohello148
Google +: okcn .aline
Tom's Hardware : okcnaline
OSBetaArchive: ExplicitNuM5
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
Microsoft even made an antivirus for Dos/Windows 3.x back in the day.
............................[url=gopher://nickmaslon.com]Visit my gopher site![/url]
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
MSAV (Microsoft Anti-Virus) and it's Windows version was in fact developed by Central Point Software (was later acquired by Symantec).nickenzi wrote:Microsoft even made an antivirus for Dos/Windows 3.x back in the day.
- Archenemy
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:05 pm
- Location: C:\Users\Archenemy
Re: Viruses for Windows 3.1?
There have been viruses in every os since circa 1984 ( Yes macs can get viruses too.)
@Archenemy betaarchive member
Last edited by Archenemy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:00 am, edited 6634564737338 times in total.
Last edited by Archenemy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:00 am, edited 6634564737338 times in total.