"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.

Sign up to receive Security Resource Alerts
A comprehensive security management solution can help you streamline, as well as grow, your current or evolving business. In this way, a strategic security approach can help you increase your competitiveness in these challenging market conditions.
Download now! »Find out how you can effectively collect, normalize and archive enterprise-wide, security-related data that is invaluable for security investigation and compliance reporting.
Download now! »This session focuses on the intersection of role management and identity compliance, and addresses the importance of identity compliance in enterprise governance and the challenges that organizations may face in achieving it.
View now! »