Re: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)
From: Nick FitzGerald (nick_at_virus-l.demon.co.uk)
To: email@example.com Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:10:22 +1200
Todd Burroughs to Frank Knobbe:
> > Isn't the complete lack of naming standardization in the AV industry
> > simply amazing? Imagine that were the case in science, particular
> > medicine...
> No shit. They should at least get together and come up with some common
> naming convention. They need to make some common "naming authority", it's
> not difficult, we do it all the time with other software and as mentioned,
> in all scientific disciplines. Otherwise, things become very convoluted
> for us in the know. This is irrelevent to the general population,
> but is necessary for the people who have to deal with these things.
Believe it or not we know, and things are being done about it.
The "scientific disciplines" and others you speak of don't have to deal
with things that happen in any and all possible combinations of as
often, as fast, polymorphically, metamorphically, combinatorially, etc
as the AV industry does _and generally_ have had several generations of
academic research to form, refine, toss out and start over, etc their
classifaction and naming systems. Still, I agree that we AV
researchers could do naming better but there is not sufficient external
pressure to force the industry to try to do a better job of naming than
it currently does so it has no reason to "do the hard yards" that any
significant improvement in naming consistency will require...
> How about it "AV guys"? (I mean to be nice here...)
Other than a few voices wailing within the industry, there are some
much larger scale moves afoot that just may change the "there is not
sufficient external pressure" factor I mentioned above, though
realistically these moves may take years rather than months to produce
significant improvement, but they are a start...
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.