This should not be used as a replace for the virus-pattern-system! Only to have standardized names for recently discovered but not yet named viruses. And someone (who tells the name of a found virus nothing) can see to which category of viruses it belongs without remembering every name
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 19:33, you wrote: > So if I change my name the police can't find me? ;) > > AV companies should be able to work with any form of ID. Use their local > until an agreement as been made. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Loch > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] AV Naming Convention > > > This completely misses the point. > > I do not completely agree ... > > > When a new virus is discovered, it is > > essential that there is a RAPID response to the threat. ... > > I agree... > > > ...The idead of > > handing the critter over to a committee to decide it's name is, quite > > frankly, plain bonkers. > > Why? > > > 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? > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html P.S. AV companies should be able to work __together__ and that __without__ any kind of naming. They should find those digital bastards and neutralize them! _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
