Yup. We arguing here on fine tuning industry accepted terms would hardly make any difference. But here we are just trying to argue what "should had been" the terminology. You can say that just cutting out time when there is really no work ;) :P Regards; w0lf -- sent from BlackBerry --
-----Original Message----- From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <t...@hammerofgod.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:35:33 To: w0lfd...@gmail.com<w0lfd...@gmail.com>; Curt Purdy<infosy...@gmail.com>; full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk<full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk>; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk<full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk> Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability" None of this really matters. People will call it whatever they want to. Generally, all software has some sort of vulnerability. If they want to call the process of that vulnerability being communicated for the first time "0 day vulnerability" then so what. The industry can't (and won't) even come up with what "Remote Code Execution" really means, so trying to standardize disclosure nomenclature is a waste of time IMO. t >-----Original Message----- >From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure- >boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of w0lfd...@gmail.com >Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:25 AM >To: Curt Purdy; full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk; full- >disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk >Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability" > >Yep. Totally agree. Vulnerability exists in the system since it has been >developed. It is just the matter when it has been disclosed or being exploited. > >I would suggest " 0 day disclosure" instead of "0 day vulnerability" :) > > >------Original Message------ >From: Curt Purdy >Sender: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk >To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk >Subject: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability" >Sent: Oct 28, 2010 8:48 PM > >Sorry to rant, but I have seen this term used once too many times to sit idly >by. And used today by what I once thought was a respectable infosec >publication (that will remain nameless) while referring to the current Firefox >vulnerability (that did, by the way, once have a 0-day >sploit) Also, by definition, a 0-day no longer exists the moment it is >announced ;) > >For once and for all: There is no such thing as a "zero-day vulnerability" >(quoted), only a 0-day exploit... > >Curt Purdy CISSP, GSNA, GSEC, MCSE+I, CCNA > >_______________________________________________ >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > >Sent from BlackBerry(r) on Airtel >_______________________________________________ >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
