=== 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
