RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm)
From: Exibar (exibar_at_thelair.com)
To: <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:47:46 -0500
How can this be a 0-day worm is McAfee VirusScan picks it up as VBS/Psyme
worm? In my opinion, in order to truely be a 0-day worm, it has to be
completely new. It doesn't even have to be a new vulnerability really.
0-day --> date of birth (no AV signatures out at first onset, larger AV
companies start releasing signatures after a couple hours of backwards
1 - 3 Day ---> living the good life (Large AV vendors have sigs out,
smaller av vendors should have them out as well)
3+ Day ---> old.... (ALL AV vendors have sigs out)
Now, a 0-day vulnerabilty and a 0-day worm for the 0-day vuln, would be
something indeed. It surely would catch the world by surprise....
Psyme is not 0-day, McAfee had DATS out for it since October 8, last
year, discovered September 30 last year...
I'm not trying to start a flame war, thats just the way I see things.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:53 PM
> To: Drew Copley
> Cc: Jelmer; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: new internet explorer exploit
> (was new worm)
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:44:12 PST, Drew Copley <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > Yeah. It is a zero day worm, and it is very notable as such.
> > I can not recall a previous zero day worm. (AV is not my job, but I do
> > try and follow zero day.)
> > Hence, IE has birthed us the first zero day worm.
> Has anybody offered the Microsoft dude who denied the existence of 0-days
> some ketchup for his fried crow? ;)
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.