Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: CSTEHLIK@SCU.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: RE:virus names
Message-ID: <0011.9008221137.AA19228@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 90 22:02:00 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 14
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

I think that a standard naming convention for naming viruses is the
best idea that I have heard in a long time.  When there were only a
few viruses, it was fine to give each a creative name, but now there
are over 200 and most have several aliases.  Sometimes it's difficult
to be sure exactly which virus someone is talking about.  Standard
names would greatly simplify communication about viruses (like this
list) and identifying new viruses.
   My personal preference would be naming them by size and then an
optional extension to denote variants or special characteristics. An
example is 1704-a, or 4096-stealth.  However any systematic method of
naming would be great.  I think it's an idea which is long overdue.

  Chris Stehlik
 (no organization talking , just me)