Stop trying to force catchy names, researchers.

From someone who works regularly with vulnerability management, it’s actually needed.

Vulnerabilities have really boring numbers and it’s difficult for humans to discuss them in a meaningful way. I believe the first vulnerability to get a “name” was heartbleed, the theory being that with a name people would take it seriously and discuss it properly. Given the severity of this vulnerability, it probably got a name but since it’s being patched by the vendors affected, it was probably not needed.

Heartbleed was needed because individual web sites had to update their software immediately or have their traffic intercepted.