Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M.Chess) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Virus naming Message-ID: <0005.9103251532.AA25003@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 21 Mar 91 19:21:38 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 21 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu The trouble with hash codes, or dates, or anything else semi-automatic is that, when there get to be enough of them, the names start to become useless. At IBM, we tried to use number-names whenever possible early on, but the disadvantages became apparent after not too long. If there's a 453 and a 435 virus, for instance, it's Real Hard to remember which is which! The same would apply to a #AR657XXL and #AR567LXL, or a PC Smith 910004 and PC Smith 910014. Our current rather tentative approach is to use a generally-non-numeric stem for each virus family, and then tack on a number or similar object to pin down exactly which object we're discussing. So we talk about the "Flip-2343" and the "Flip-2153" (if I've remembered the numbers right). The first part helps the human remember which virus in general this is, and the second part pins it down. If it is desirable to have a distinct number of some kind for each virus (and it might well be at some point), I'd suggest having a technically- redundant-but-in-fact-very-very-helpful-to-us- finite-humans human name for each one (or at least each strain) as well. DC