"What's in a name?" That was the question computer virus experts were asking each other at a panel discussion of virus naming conventions at Virus Bulletin 2003 (VB2003), an annual gathering of the world's leading authorities on computer viruses, worms and malicious code that was held in Toronto last week.
Disagreements about what and how to name new worms and viruses have produced a confusing system in recent years in which antivirus companies often compete to be the first to "name" a new virus and in which the same malicious code often has two or more names assigned to it, experts agreed.
Moderated by David Perry, global director of education at Trend Micro Inc., the panel was made up of noted malicious code experts, who often name viruses, and antivirus representatives from large corporations, who struggle with the practical problem of defending against new computer virus threats.
Setting a jocular tone, and highlighting some of the comical by-products of the current virus naming system, Perry "named" each of the panel members in the style of current viruses. To the great amusement of audience members, panel member Shawn Campbell, global antivirus project manager for Ford Motor Co., became "Campbell/03" under Perry's guidance and Randy Abrams, release antivirus specialist at Microsoft Corp., was dubbed "W32.Abrams."
Behind the scenes, however, is a concern that the multiplicity of names assigned to high-profile viruses and worms may result in confusion that helps those viruses to spread.
Calling virus naming discrepancies a "major issue", Campbell said that IT experts within large organizations often end up boggled by differences between the name antivirus vendors are using to describe a threat and popular names for those threats that are propagated in the mass media.
Technical naming conventions are fine for virus experts, but they mean nothing to most employees and corporate executives who are more likely to remember names like "I love you" and "Melissa" than "VBS.LoveLetter.A" and "W97.Melissa.A." The result is that corporate antivirus experts waste valuable time and resources in an outbreak trying to reconcile the differences, Campbell said.
"Scientific names mean nothing to the public. The question is: 'What was it called when your manager saw it on CNN?' Maybe it's something you're already working on," he said.
At issue is a semi-official virus naming convention that dates back to the early 1990s and was developed by the Computer Antivirus Research Organization (CARO), a group of computer security experts.
Released in 1991 and occasionally updated since then, the CARO Virus Naming Convention set guidelines for what could and could not be used to name viruses and established a scheme that used attributes such as the type of threat (macro virus, Trojan horse), the platform affected and the family of threat, to come up with a name.
Speaking on behalf of the current system, panel member and CARO member Nick Fitzgerald said that the CARO system still works and that antivirus companies need to be careful that changes to existing naming conventions don't break proven antivirus engines that detect and thwart malicious code.
But others point to problems with the CARO Virus Naming Convention, especially the different results produced when legitimate antivirus researchers apply it to new threats.
This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.
Download now »Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.
Download now »
The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.
Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation
Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect businesscritical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.
Download now »
Sign up to receive Security Resource Alerts
This white paper provides guidance on how to develop a strategic approach to managing and monitoring logs, a key function required for compliance with many regulatory mandates and a critical defense against security threats.
Download now! »Learn about the processes and technologies that support security information management (SIM) operations, as well as the business case for SIM. The series examines different options for implementing SIM and gives you evaluation criteria for selecting the best option for your organization.
Download now! »Learn the strategies, actions, and capabilities that Best-in-Class organizations employ and technologies they choose to obtain superior performance against various security performance metrics. This report provides guidelines for identifying which security solutions to consume as a MSS and defines best practices for choosing and managing MSSPs.
Download now! »