Names Given To Computers

[Mr. Analog]

My project leader sent this to me this morning, good for a Monday morning haha.

Here are computer naming schemes that we've seen in real life, or maybe that we think would be good ideas. Most are people, places or things, but there are others. See also TipsForNamingComputers.

Names Given To Computers
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NamesGivenToComputers

[Darren Dirt]

Man, if I had a nickel for every org. I've worked for that had "GANDALF" as a server name...

[Mr. Analog]

I see a lot of WUMPUS, which I think was from Xork?

[Darren Dirt]

I see a lot of WUMPUS, which I think was from Xork?

You are thinking of a "Grue" (as in "Turn on a light or you will be eaten by a...")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_the_Wumpus <-- I remember programming this game once!, after reading a description and sample source code in "MORE BASIC Computer Games", yes I actually had that book! (Their code for "The Game of Life" was pretty neat, I learned a lot from it IIRC)


see also more "early I.F. history" here and here , and playable version here

[Tonnica]

I lol'ed at this:

Moomin characters [...] snufkin

Heck yeah! Snufkin!

I like how nicknames for PCs give a bit of personality to the history of computer ownershp. Instead of going on about specs I can say "After the GorgonBox died I created Oberon from spare parts. Later I upgraded and moved the kept components into New Oberon. When New Oberon started to blink in and out of existence I knew it was time to move on. Later I purchased and built Puck from the base up. I was unlucky and Puck acted up with a bad motherboard."

Makes for a better story than going from PII to Core2 with the tech specs.

[Mr. Analog]

You are correct sir!

[Darren Dirt]

You are correct sir!

lol: "It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." vs. "Grue (Pitch Black), predatory creatures featured in the movie Pitch Black" geez Vin and Co. you were WARNED by Jack Vance DECADES ago!

[Tom]

I like my naming scheme:

* Natasha
* Boris
* Sherman
* Edgar
* Chauncey

[Darren Dirt]

If I had an IT shop, prolly would be MAL, ZOE, WASH, JAYNE, BOOK, KAYLEE, etc.  -- once FF characters are done with, prolly would be BUFFY, XANDER, SPIKE, ... just kidding! I'm not *that* geeky!

[Lazybones]

after working in a larger wan environment I am staring to appriciate boring functional naming standards. A name like svedm001 tells me a box is a server and in edmonton, rtedm001 is a router in edmonton... etc Where as the dev servers stan, cartman and kyle don't stand out.

[Tom]

Yeah, I'd only use funky names at home or in a small environment.

Ok, thats not quite true, I don't use funky names on any of my VMs at home, one is "svn", another is "awiki" (allegro wiki), another is "asterisk", you get the picture

[Mr. Analog]

after working in a larger wan environment I am staring to appriciate boring functional naming standards. A name like svedm001 tells me a box is a server and in edmonton, rtedm001 is a router in edmonton... etc Where as the dev servers stan, cartman and kyle don't stand out.

As long as the names are meaningful... my UAT server pool is prefixed with EBD1- but my development environment is prefixed as EBA1- now tell me what you think that means! I won't even talk about database naming!

[Melbosa]

So with all this "good" naming conventions (as Lazy described), you loose the concept of "security through obscurity".  This may not be an issue to you, but just thought I would point that out.

At NAIT, we still follow this style of security obscurity naming for the most part.  Some departments have similar naming systems as you guys described here, but for the most part the department I work for, we utilize naming that has nothing to do with the system, location, or function.  We have documentation to support the name to function, so that we can easily determine what a server is for, but based on the fact that our client base is so large and diverse, we thought this would be a prudent way to name our systems.

Just think of over 40,000 people attached to your network behind your firewall, consuming your server resources, that aren't employees of your company, nor do they have any real ties to your systems health other than their tuition.  Now throw in the fact that they may decide to perform malicious things on that network, or just want to see how secure you really are (CST, SSA, CSE students).  When considering this, every security measure we can employ (within reason) we utilize as best we can.  Not to say just the naming convention is our only security measure, but is one of many to help ensure we are safe under these conditions.

[Mr. Analog]

So with all this "good" naming conventions (as Lazy described), you loose the concept of "security through obscurity".  This may not be an issue to you, but just thought I would point that out.

Security through obscurity can't be trusted.

I can't put it any better than the summary provided here but really, any security focused component that relies on secrecy will be revealed it's just a matter of time.

I've seen a lot of counter arguments from security experts and industry pundits who say it "just works" but the trouble is that sometimes people can connect the dots, use educated guesswork or rely on information leaks and good old fashioned human error.

No matter how obscure your database server name is it only takes one CC'd e-mail outside an organization to a trusted vendor to expose it and one disgruntled vendor employee to exploit it.

[Melbosa]

True, and that is why it isn't the only security measure we utilize, just one of many.