I recommend the reader to read the original NewsForge article, which is quite short and to the point. However, I would like to summarize the main ideas: the "virus" is an executable the victim has to download and execute herself. Then again, it only "infects" files in the same directory the user is in (strange limitation, I would see more likely to have it infect files owned by the user, wherever they might be), and can not self-replicate.
So... what kind of shitty virus is that? I could write a better one myself:
rm -rf /*
At least the above deletes everything in the HD that is writeable by the user running it (and is not hidden under dot-names). What? My "virus" can not self-replicate, has to be run by the user, has no privilege scalation possibilities... well, neither does the Kaspersky virus, right?
Another BS story made up by Microsoft pet companies, it seems.