I get why popular media has some interest in making Linux look bad (as it understandably provides less advertising revenue), but I think LWN could have had PHP in the headline instead. It's not a scandals magazine :).
It's also not prone to misleading/inaccurate titles. Did you overlook smoogen's upstream comment? The article clearly states that one of the binaries is what does the "worm" part (i.e., propagation), and his comment identifies said binaries as Linux ones.
If that's not the exact definition of "Linux worm," I don't know what is.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds