From: "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFSiegri..@..mcast.net>
Date: 2008-06-02 10:41:27
Message ID: <27EA50EEDA78463DBBB63EFEC501289A@ALANSHP>
Parent: <560D1982-CA74-4F05-A9DA-642A2661603B@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Computer virus properties
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi) writes:

> The document I'm working on defines a computer virus as follows.
>
> . . .
ユーザーの予期しない、意図的に被害を及ぼすよう作成されたプログラム
> であり、次の機能を有するものをいう。
>
> ・ 自己伝染機能
> ・ 潜伏機能
> ・ 発症機能
>
> I Googled and found a very similar definition on a Japanese government
> website
> ( http://www.ipa.go.jp/security/antivirus/kijun952.html ), which happens
> to be translated into English
> ( http://www.ipa.go.jp/security/english/virus/virus-guidelin-e.html ).
> There the translation is as follows.
>
> Self-replication
> Latency
> Destruction
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't found a comparable list of properties on any
> American or European site that talks about viruses. If anyone else has,
> could you let me know where?
>
> Although "self-replication" isn't exactly the same as 自己伝染, it is such
> a basic property of computer viruses that I am inclined to use it.
> (Besides, "self-infection" doesn't sound right.) But I wonder if I should
> add something to communicate the idea of 伝染, as in "self-replication and
> transmission/infection"? Or is "self-replication" sufficient?

I think that by 自己伝染 they mean that the virus copies itself and infects other computers.
Maybe you could use something more along these lines. Self-replication is part of this, but it does
not specifically mention infecting other computers.

> Also, "destruction" seems a little too specific for 発症 (or 発病 in the
> above website). Not all viruses destroy something, right?

Well, the definition they are using is that a virus is computer code that causes harm or
destruction. Even if a virus does not specifically destroy data, it certainly slows down some aspect
of computer operation and wastes the user's time. So all viruses do some sort of harm by
definition.

> And since they seem to be using medical terminology, I am half-inclined
> to go with something like "onset of symptoms"--or perhaps just
> "onset."

I don't know about that. It sounds more like technical medical jargon.

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the "latency" definition, because some
viruses have no latency at all. Some in fact cause harm immediately, locking up the computer to the
user while the virus frantically sends copies of itself to all email addresses in their address
book.

I'm not sure that I have great suggestions for a translation that avoids these problems, though.

Regards,

Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post: mailto:honya..@..oglegroups.com
List home: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not
review messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---