full-disclosure - AV Naming Convention

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <200408101850.i7AIoIUc004478@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: AV Naming Convention 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:08:48 +0200, Thomas Loch said:

> 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?

1) "unnamed" runs into the 'John Doe 1', 'John Doe 2', etc. problem.  Remember
just a few months ago, two virus writers got into a grudge match and we had
multiple unknowns every day for a few weeks? ;)

2) You're researching a worm that spreads via IM, I'm researching a mass-mailer
worm.  We both grab a code, and later find out it's the same thing.  How is that
any different from the current situation?  You still have stuff you posted calling
it ISO-IM-00485, and I've posted stuff calling it ISO-MM-09453.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040810/e6aab4a2/attachment.bin