RE: [Full-Disclosure] AV Naming Convention

From: Frank Knobbe (
Date: 08/10/04

  • Next message: Todd Towles: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)"
    To: "Randal, Phil" <>
    Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:40:20 -0500

    On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 10:06, Randal, Phil wrote:
    > [...] I for one would rather all the antivirus
    > vendors came up with their own names if it meant that
    > detection/disinfection patterns came out hour earlier.

    And the reason the name of the virus can not be changed after said hour
    is what exactly? Agreeing on a name does not mean that they have to
    delay release of signatures.

    Perhaps new sigs can be released with candidate names, but then shortly
    thereafter changed to an agreed upon, standardized name.

    " other news, the new virus which the industry now calls
    NewSucker-1, caused havoc amongst those that...."

    Contrast that to:

    " other new, the new virus which the industry calls NewSuck-A or
    SuckThis-1, which is also known by the name of SuckTrojan.95 or
    Underloader-13, caused havoc amongst those that..."

    But you're right, the response time should not be compromised. I still
    believe that agreeing on a single name after the initial releases is not
    just possible, but would benefit all involved.



    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Todd Towles: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re:
      ... decent virus checker, it would've caught it on the way in. ... industry is rigged, it is well known that vendors pay dickheads to upload vulnerabilities so they can sell their product. ... As an individual I never had a problem for many years, but now with 4 PC's, 2 laptops, a netbook, 8gb flash drives, 1TB portable hard drives, 2 teenagers and a dog named Bob on my home network, it's impossible and a bit daft not to have anything scanning for virus'. ...
    • Re: FUD - was FAX a virus
      ... The idea of faxing a virus is ludicrous and this demonstrates the FUD in the industry. ...