I don't know about you, but I think that the antivirus companies are doing a poor job with regards to naming the worms and viruses. Names like "Code Red", "SirCam", "Nimda" and others are bad choices. Names like this lead people to believe that they are something special, something sinister, rather than what they really are.
I'd like to see the next worm capitalizing on a long patched exploit get named "Clueless.Admins". After all, it is a far more accurate representation. It would likely also induce faster patching. Just picture the headlines:
"Clueless.Admins on the rise"
"Clueless.Admins clogging Internet backbone"
"Clueless.Admins responsible for DoS attack on whitehouse.gov"
It would even make reporting them more realistic. Imagine being able to mail a company to inform them that their network was infected with Clueless.Admins.
A very accurate representation, wouldn't you think? After all, the patch for the security issue that Nimda capitalizes on is a year old. It was the same one that Code Red hit. After all the press coverage, admins still have not patched.
There is only one excuse for that, clueless admins. Lets name the worms properly so that the real cause is advertised to the world upon infection.
That brings me to e-mail attachment viruses like SirCam. How many times do these have to spread like wildfire before people stop opening unknown attachments? Lets properly name them, too. I vote for Idiot.Users as the name for the next e-mail attachment virus.
"Idiot.Users infecting company Intranets"
"Idiot.Users spreading like wildfire"
"ISP's infected with Idiot.Users"
Giving viruses and worms sinister sounding names is a grave injustice. It allows people to feel like it is not their fault, but rather the fault of some sinister virus. Lets make the next person who calls a helpdesk have to say that they are infected with "Im.an.idiot.and.I.still.open.
attachments-
even.though.it.has.been.drill
ed.into.me.that.I.should.not.
do.this", shall we?
LOL
