On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:08:48 +0200, Thomas Loch said: > Why can't we handle not yet named viruses as 'unnamed' or we use a > standardized (by ISO?) method to generate a numeric code that consists of a > classification in categories and a sequential number and probably some kind > of checksum or hash until the virus gets an official name? 1) "unnamed" runs into the 'John Doe 1', 'John Doe 2', etc. problem. Remember just a few months ago, two virus writers got into a grudge match and we had multiple unknowns every day for a few weeks? ;) 2) You're researching a worm that spreads via IM, I'm researching a mass-mailer worm. We both grab a code, and later find out it's the same thing. How is that any different from the current situation? You still have stuff you posted calling it ISO-IM-00485, and I've posted stuff calling it ISO-MM-09453.
Attachment:
pgp00038.pgp
Description: PGP signature