Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: (no subject)
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:12:09 -0500
Howdy Harlan, On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 09:40, Harlan Carvey wrote:
The attitude that the entire A/V industry should have a common naming convention seems to be coming from the open source camp...while A/V companies aren't necessarily open source. Companies in general are about making money, and you do that through establishing and maintaining competitive advantages.
What gave you the idea that this discussion started from a open source camp? But you are right in regards to the goals of the A/V companies. I think a lot of folks in this thread made is blatantly clear that A/V companies do not care about their clients or client satisfaction, they just care about their bottom line. Let's leave it at that and move on.
How are A/V companies competitive? They identify and analyze malware, and update their products. Doing it faster and better than the next guy is the key. Slowing that process down to coordinate with other companies dissolves the advantage. Let's say I discover a piece of malware, and call a round table meeting...only to find out that none of the other members have discovered the malware yet. My advantage goes bye-bye.
Nope, doesn't have to be. There doesn't need to be information sharing. I wouldn't even make it a round table meeting. On the risk of being ridiculed again by Nick or others, let's entertain this idea. Remove the round table and replace it with a public (or industry) "bell". If an A/V company (commercial or not) finds a new virus, it rings the bell. First to ring the bell sets a name. Other companies publish with their own name *candidates* and if it turns out to be the same virus, adopt the name of the company ringing the bell. Renaming a virus on a web site and in a database and signature set a few hours later shouldn't be hard to to. But what do I know about the A/V industry anyway... I'm just making silly suggestions. No information sharing needs to take place, and competitive advantage remains. All it takes is an industry "agreement" to work this way. I think it will benefit their clients greatly. In closing, the A/V industry has done a good job with naming viruses in the past. However, in recent year the surge of worms has quickened the reaction of the industry. They know respond in hours, dare I say minutes, because the worm/virus/malware is spreading faster then it did before. This haste or rush to market is what caused the names to differ between vendors. And I think that through a sensible agreement, heck make it a handshake agreement, the industry can return to better more coherent naming of viruses. Regards, Frank
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: (no subject), (continued)
- Re: (no subject) Bernardo Quintero (Aug 09)
- Re: (no subject) Frank Knobbe (Aug 09)
- Re: (no subject) Nick FitzGerald (Aug 09)
- Re: (no subject) Maarten (Aug 12)
- Re: (no subject) Nick FitzGerald (Aug 12)
- Re: (no subject) Todd Burroughs (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Harlan Carvey (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Harlan Carvey (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Frank Knobbe (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) (try using a friggin subject line...) KF_lists (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Bernardo Quintero (Aug 09)
- Re: (no subject) Nick FitzGerald (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Maarten (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Maarten (Aug 13)
- Re: (no subject) Nick FitzGerald (Aug 14)
- Re: (no subject) Al Reust (Aug 15)
- Re: (no subject) Maarten (Aug 15)
- Re: (no subject) Michel Messerschmidt (Aug 16)
- Re: (no subject) Todd Burroughs (Aug 10)
