> I have to agree with Todd, the naming convention is now right > useless for the normal population and make keeping up with > viruses on a corporate level that much harder. AV companies > are always trying to beat the other company and this leads to > very little information sharing between the companies on new > viruses, etc. > > Maybe a foundation should be created. This foundation could > give a seal of approval to all AV corporations that join in. > We are starting to make rules for patch management over at > patchmanagment.org. Why couldn't a group work with AV names > and the first company that finds and IDs it correctly gets to > name it in the foundation. Just a dream, I would guess.
This completely misses the point. When a new virus is discovered, it is essential that there is a RAPID response to the threat. The idead of handing the critter over to a committee to decide it's name is, quite frankly, plain bonkers. 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. Cheers, Phil ---- Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
