full-disclosure - National Database of Variants with Fixes-non-vendor specific

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <B99D046F7F16A34EA7926E14DD82F5A114CCEE@exchny28.ny.ssmb.com>
From: jan.m.clairmont at citigroup.com (Clairmont, Jan M)
Subject: National Database of Variants with Fixes-non-vendor specific

That is why there should be a National Standards Organization for 
SPAM, Virii, Trojans, etc. etc.  This is a critical need there
should be an RFC created with a reporting database.  All vendors would
have be required to report it or they would not meet the 
International Standards. They would report the fix  and a methodology
for naming time/place of first origin report etc. per exemplar:
A-virus1.1.2004.14:35:01EST.1 alias Mydoom.12 variant.
Time stamp found and unique name type if they turn out to be the same
variant, then the database purges any newer finds without too many
duplications.   

This is not that difficult it just needs to have a reporting  authority.
Without a centralized authority on reporting there is
no way to effectively combat the threats to the internet.

I am seeing great ideas, keep it coming.  
Jan Clairmont
Firewall Administrator/Consultant

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com]On Behalf Of
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:47 AM
To: Todd Burroughs
Cc: Frank Knobbe; full-disclosure@...sys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] (no subject) 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:02:23 EDT, Todd Burroughs said:

> No shit.  They should at least get together and come up with some
common
> naming convention.  They need to make some common "naming authority",
it's
> not difficult, we do it all the time with other software and as
mentioned,
> in all scientific disciplines.

Software gets named over days/weeks.  They crank out a new name for an
element
every few years. These things need names in *MINUTES* - often while the
various
A/V companies are looking at different copies of a polymorphic,
multi-attack
piece of malware.

5 blind men and an elephant time... and you want them to agree on a name
before
they even agree they're looking at the same thing???