On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Daniel Bachfeld wrote:
> So far we have Bagle AQ, AT, AU, AY and BB for the same worm
> More proposals?
>
> This is the biggest divergence i've seen the last months. Is there any
> reason, why the vendors could not agree on one name? We already have
> CVE-entries and Bugtraq-IDs for vulnerabilities.
So far I noticed at least two distinct files which were detected as
W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (F-Prot) or Worm.Bagle.AT (ClamAV).
Now I get freash trash Which is decoded as W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (F-Prot) or
Worm.Bagle.AX (ClamAV).
I am under the impression it is not a single infection.
But I share your sense of utter confusion. To which the people of ClamAV
have contributed way too much. (Noticed their 'SomeFool'series?)
Hugo.
--
I hate duplicates. Just reply to the relevant mailinglist.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
Don't meddle in the affairs of magicians,
for they are subtle and quick to anger.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
