These marketed attacks with special logos drive me up the wall. If I ever discover one I'll <edit!> give it a rude name and force everyone to look at a silly picture to go with it.
Whatever you might think of the name, this is bona fide important crypto work; it's one of the more interesting TLS attacks ever discovered. Please try to be careful about distracting from the important stuff with silly stuff like naming.
Rebels without a cause...
Instead of hating people marketing vulnerbilities, tackle why people-in-power don't care about vuln when communicated the old way.
Perhaps with a logo - I never really pay much attention to logos - but it wasn't the first to have an accessible name. Just off the top of my head I can name 3 SSL vulnerabilities that predated Heartbleed: BEAST, CRIME, BREACH.
Personally I can't see how having a logo changes much in terms of press coverage since radio and printed newspapers tend not to publish the logos, online publications have a large resource of stock images they can use (eg Getty) and the TV would likely want video footage anyway.
I think the nature of the bug with Heartbleed also played an important factor in it's coverage. It was quite a simple exploit to explain to the lay-person (albeit imprecisely) when compared to BEAST, CRIME, BREACH, POODLE, etc which require a much greater understanding of SSL/TLS. We do see other unbranded exploits are reported by the mainstream media, such as websites being hacked, DDoS attacks, etc, and in all of those instances the content is easily communicated in a 30 second soundbite.
- ILOVEYOU - Melissa - Slammer
We've been naming attacks for a long time. Perhaps one difference is that these days, a vulnerability is named if it's deemed high-risk/high-impact. In the past, vulnerabilities became well-known names once they'd been seen to do serious damage.
This is a blip. As soon as this escalates and everybody starts "Marketing" their latest security vulnerabilities they will once again be lost in the storm.
Edit: dear Ben, you let us down :(
Edit: Well, OP edited their comment and now mine makes no sense... time to take a break.
Instead of the nondescript
- Issue #2654: misplaced comma on page 3 of documentation
- Issue #2653: open() should accept relative file path
it should be
- Quetzalcoatl's Rage: misplaced comma on page 3 of documentation
- The Dying Curse of Buluc Chabtan: open() should accept relative file path
EDIT: Sorry, for consultancy read "peer-reviewed paper".