Re: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)
From: Barry Fitzgerald (bkfsec_at_sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: 08/13/04
- Previous message: bart2k_at_hushmail.com: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: iDEFENSE - New Tricks [web censorship!]"
- Maybe in reply to: Micheal Espinola Jr: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)"
- Next in thread: Etaoin Shrdlu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Virus naming conventions, or lack of them"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Todd Towles <toddtowles@brookshires.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:02:03 -0400
Todd Towles wrote:
>How is naming a virus with @mm or a W32 in the front slow the process
>down? Naming has nothing to do with AV venders making money IMO. If it
>does, McAfee should change its name to Norton before tries to buy it
>out. =)
>
>
>
It doesn't have a direct impact -- however, you're not going to get the
major companies to agree to put resources towards collaboration and
changing names. That's a used resource which cuts into their profits.
(Note: I'm trying to take this from their perspective, not mine.)
It's a little more complex than just having prefixes and postfixes.
Actually, if you look at the latest e-mail worms and their variance in
variant naming between AV vendors, it's a lot more complex than
standardized prefixes and whatnot.
Not to mention the fact that many businesses won't do so as a matter of
ego/self-reliance.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: bart2k_at_hushmail.com: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: iDEFENSE - New Tricks [web censorship!]"
- Maybe in reply to: Micheal Espinola Jr: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject)"
- Next in thread: Etaoin Shrdlu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Virus naming conventions, or lack of them"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
