Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 00:10 +1000, Bill Maidment wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Since the so-called "major players" are supposedly on board with this,
will we see clamav providing input to this project?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1862251,00.asp
Frankly, it seems pretty hokey to me...
I say, everyone do their own thing. Whoever choses the catchiest name
wins. Let's keep these mail admins on their toes. It's so much more fun
that way.
No, I like the idea of being able to talk about a worm with the same
identifier as the poor misguided trend users I work with, but the idea
that
Initially, only high-impact viruses and worms will receive CME
numbers, though Mitre may extend CME numbers to lower-level
threats once the program is up and running, she said.
Which means that most of the threats will be without an identifier at
all, and
When multiple examples of new malicious code are submitted
within the 2-hour window, Mitre will ask anti-virus company
researchers to work out conflicts in definitions and submit
one or more samples for numbering, Connolly said.
Which means that any database linking would be n:n, which is terribly
un-helpful.
In an industry where being consistantly first with anti-viral code translates to
revenue there is no reason to expect adding this layer of bureaucracy will
gather much following. This is a solution for an insignificant problem. It is
less important to know what to call a thing than to respond rapidly to the
thing. As my flight instructor used to say, "aviate first, then communicate".
I don't care about the names, I care about the process and I think for ClamAV
the process is working very well.
dp
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
