Standardization is the solution: If precise rules are established to name viruses, then it is not even necessary that AV companies meet to decide on the name for every new virus.
The problem here is the way viruses have been getting classified through the years, which leads to a "would-be-taxonomy" that reflects more economic and marketing interests than a "scientifically-driven" classification effort. A clear example is the use of "malware" as an accepted term encompassing viruses, worms, adware, spyware, etc. Malware stands for "malicious software". Can you categorically affirm that all viruses, worms and the like are made with a "malicious intention"? You cannot! But "Malware" is a term that sounds great to scare people and that's good for marketing purposes. So, what alternative could be used to describe what is known today as "malware"? What all these "entities" share is that they get to their destination without the user's consent. So, regardless of the intention at their origin, they all are "intruders". Why not call them, for example, "intrudeware"? Another example is the one of Trojan horses. How come some AV companies abbreviate Trojan Horses as "Trojans"? It is clear that if we are to follow this Trojan-Greek story, Trojans were the victims of the Trojan Horse, therefore "Trojan" would refer to infected software or equipment. What is clear here is that, contrary to the biological virus taxonomy, which follows rigorous scientific methods, computer virus classification (I dare not call it "taxonomy"...) as we have it today is far from being "scientific", and will continue so, as long as economic interest prevails on scientific interest. Regards, IÃigo Koch Red Segura _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
