<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ahhh..  Mega-D == Cutwail et al.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/02/ahhh-mega-d-cutwail-et-al/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/02/ahhh-mega-d-cutwail-et-al/</link>
	<description>A weblog dedicated to educating the community on security threats that matter</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/02/ahhh-mega-d-cutwail-et-al/#comment-65426</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/02/ahhh-mega-d-cutwail-et-al/#comment-65426</guid>
		<description>As to the malware classification/naming conundrum... there are several reasons (I can come up with) that malware gets misnamed/misclassified/poorly-dealt-with, not the least of which is it's not in the AV vendor's best interest to cooperate in the naming/classification game. The researchers and operators get left trying to run multiple engines against single samples with the vain hope that some may agree on a name or partial name. Then arranging a story around why vendorX and vendorY say this is FOO but vendorA and vendorB can't agree if it's BAR or BAZ :(

The best setup for this classification I've seen so far is the Family/Genus/Species model dragged back to the source-code of the malware in question, done by a neutral third party (is that possible in this game?) and used across the board. One would hope that the AV folks would rid themselves of their current ostrich-syndrome and make this problem better, but...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As to the malware classification/naming conundrum&#8230; there are several reasons (I can come up with) that malware gets misnamed/misclassified/poorly-dealt-with, not the least of which is it&#8217;s not in the AV vendor&#8217;s best interest to cooperate in the naming/classification game. The researchers and operators get left trying to run multiple engines against single samples with the vain hope that some may agree on a name or partial name. Then arranging a story around why vendorX and vendorY say this is FOO but vendorA and vendorB can&#8217;t agree if it&#8217;s BAR or BAZ :(</p>
<p>The best setup for this classification I&#8217;ve seen so far is the Family/Genus/Species model dragged back to the source-code of the malware in question, done by a neutral third party (is that possible in this game?) and used across the board. One would hope that the AV folks would rid themselves of their current ostrich-syndrome and make this problem better, but&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
