WOW - talk about a completely mis-informed opinion about the virus research labs.
Having been in those shoes and visited some of the aforementioned "neckbeards" in situ I can say this is clearly not the case. Having met and spoken with the Jimmy Kuo's, Eugene Kaspersky's and Mikko Hypponen's of the community I can say this is a gross misrepresentation of the true facts. The names are based on a range of criteria, most notably the OS, the type of infector, the vector, and whether it's been seen before.
If Kaspersky has a different "top 10" than McAfee or Symantec it's because THEIR software is detecting a different top 10 than the other guys. Notice not one of them match the Wildlist 100% of the time - OOH! What about Virus Bulletin's list for each month? Perhaps you missed the boat when the AV community as a whole bandied this topic around over 10 years ago. Perhaps you've never looked at the online VGrep search engine that cross-references THOUSANDS of malware across several vendors and shows you which call it X and which call it Y (and which don't detect it at all).
Now - your one point that the typical user doesn't care about cross-reference tables is spot on. That most users click whatever they can to make the alert go away is also a fair assessment (god bless their pointy little heads and my job security!!).
But, yes, the vendors DID try to get a single naming convention going several years ago through CARO but have really hit a brick wall. In the end does it even matter? Who cares if it's called "monkey_butt" or "fuzzy_toes". It's a malware - you need a signature update - if you're an admin you get to chase your tail and impact your forehead on a wall getting it cleaned up.
This is one of the finest traditions in clock making. It shows not only the workmanship of the master clock maker but also the cabinetry of the master woodworker coming together to bring you . . .
First - someone please notify Al Gore that 3Com is claiming patent rights over the internet HE invented. I'm sure a movie will be forthcoming.
Second - and slightly more seriously - what about RFC 826 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc826.html) regarding ethernet? Oddly enough 3Com isn't a part of that document and it clearly says "...This protocol was originally designed for the DEC/Intel/Xerox 10Mbit Ethernet..." and was published in 1982. Here are the other ethernet related RFCs (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/np.html#ETH).
Now there IS a patent for the original ethernet standard issued in 1977 to Dr. Metcalfe, et al on behalf of Xerox (do we hear echos of PARC?) - http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4063220
Do the nit wits honestly think an additional 10 to 21 days will make a significant improvement in our present education system? GIVE ME A BREAK!
How about we try a tiny experiment first. Let's get the monkey off our teachers' backs about teaching children morals and ethics. Since that should well and truly be part of the parents' roles in teaching their children to be responsible members of our society. Second, let's have a process where teachers are assessed as well. Far too often I see teachers more interested in establishing arbitrary rules and basing grades on personal opinions of a student than of the actual performance and assessment of the student in a given subject than with actually teaching a topic. For that matter there needs to be something showing the teacher is actually knowledgeable and capable to teach the subject. Once we have the roles and responsibilities established we can then have reasonable dialogue on expectations.
What should we expect from our educational system? Furthermore, what do we show as expectations from the children? Get an established set of expectations and then hold ALL involved (parents, students, teachers, administration, etc. ) accountable and THEN we might "level the playing field". Until then all we have done is some ridiculous and pointless demonstration that, in the end, achieves nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
according to my wife I have the same problem sometimes.
YUP! It maliciously removes any software it deems bad
or competitive
or more superior
or more capable
or cheaper
or . . .
The current administration cuts have affected this program. They realise the expense of sending a probe to the sun is costly and a one-way trip.
To reduce these costs and to be able to retrieve their probe the current administration has decided we'll go at night.
WOW - talk about a completely mis-informed opinion about the virus research labs.
Having been in those shoes and visited some of the aforementioned "neckbeards" in situ I can say this is clearly not the case. Having met and spoken with the Jimmy Kuo's, Eugene Kaspersky's and Mikko Hypponen's of the community I can say this is a gross misrepresentation of the true facts. The names are based on a range of criteria, most notably the OS, the type of infector, the vector, and whether it's been seen before.
If Kaspersky has a different "top 10" than McAfee or Symantec it's because THEIR software is detecting a different top 10 than the other guys. Notice not one of them match the Wildlist 100% of the time - OOH! What about Virus Bulletin's list for each month? Perhaps you missed the boat when the AV community as a whole bandied this topic around over 10 years ago. Perhaps you've never looked at the online VGrep search engine that cross-references THOUSANDS of malware across several vendors and shows you which call it X and which call it Y (and which don't detect it at all).
Now - your one point that the typical user doesn't care about cross-reference tables is spot on. That most users click whatever they can to make the alert go away is also a fair assessment (god bless their pointy little heads and my job security!!).
But, yes, the vendors DID try to get a single naming convention going several years ago through CARO but have really hit a brick wall. In the end does it even matter? Who cares if it's called "monkey_butt" or "fuzzy_toes". It's a malware - you need a signature update - if you're an admin you get to chase your tail and impact your forehead on a wall getting it cleaned up.
I'm sure Mr Brown has a list already.
This is one of the finest traditions in clock making. It shows not only the workmanship of the master clock maker but also the cabinetry of the master woodworker coming together to bring you . . .
the grandfather clock!
Quaero ergo cogito?
First - someone please notify Al Gore that 3Com is claiming patent rights over the internet HE invented. I'm sure a movie will be forthcoming.
Second - and slightly more seriously - what about RFC 826 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc826.html) regarding ethernet? Oddly enough 3Com isn't a part of that document and it clearly says "...This protocol was originally designed for the DEC/Intel/Xerox
10Mbit Ethernet..." and was published in 1982. Here are the other ethernet related RFCs (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/np.html#ETH).
Now there IS a patent for the original ethernet standard issued in 1977 to Dr. Metcalfe, et al on behalf of Xerox (do we hear echos of PARC?) - http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4063220
Do the nit wits honestly think an additional 10 to 21 days will make a significant improvement in our present education system? GIVE ME A BREAK! How about we try a tiny experiment first. Let's get the monkey off our teachers' backs about teaching children morals and ethics. Since that should well and truly be part of the parents' roles in teaching their children to be responsible members of our society. Second, let's have a process where teachers are assessed as well. Far too often I see teachers more interested in establishing arbitrary rules and basing grades on personal opinions of a student than of the actual performance and assessment of the student in a given subject than with actually teaching a topic. For that matter there needs to be something showing the teacher is actually knowledgeable and capable to teach the subject. Once we have the roles and responsibilities established we can then have reasonable dialogue on expectations. What should we expect from our educational system? Furthermore, what do we show as expectations from the children? Get an established set of expectations and then hold ALL involved (parents, students, teachers, administration, etc. ) accountable and THEN we might "level the playing field". Until then all we have done is some ridiculous and pointless demonstration that, in the end, achieves nothing.