[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <411E64A8.25281.14442A6@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: (no subject)
Brad Griffin wrote:
<<big snip>>
> I can't understand how the Google research is a problem with naming
> conventions. Google for a virus name and multiple hits come up, mostly
> for descriptions on a/v sites that also carry the alias names in most
> cases.
The "problem" with such "Google research" (or with using VGrep) is that
it is too much "after the event".
As I keep saying, and as admins everywhere keep agreeing with me, the
biggest part of the naming inconsistency problem occurs in the first
few hours of an outbreak (or suspected outbreak) event. Neither Google
nor VGrep can help you then...
Some AV developers have taken more care to list the names they know
their competitors are using by the time they post a web description of
a new virus, and some make the effort to update that list for the hours
or days following an outbreak, at least for "high interest" viruses but
that is only a partial solution to the problem.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Computer Virus Consulting Ltd.
Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854
Powered by blists - more mailing lists