Re: [Full-Disclosure] AV Naming Convention

[ASB <abaker@xxxxxxxxx>]

===
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.
===

Agreed.

-ASB

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:40:20 -0500, Frank Knobbe <frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> "...in other news, the new virus which the industry now calls
> NewSucker-1, caused havoc amongst those that...."
> 
> Contrast that to:
> 
> "...in 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Frank

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html