Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day



I asked a few fairly regular Joes (our sales staff) what 0Day means to
them.. just the words, they have no point of reference and they all pretty
much agreed that they thought it meant

"less than a day old" "or less than 24 hours ago, X happened"

that is what i remember it being in the old NNTP file xfer days as well.

these are non-tech savy folks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Griffis" <adriang63@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Brian Loe" <knobdy@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gadi Evron" <ge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Thor (Hammer of God)"
<thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Chad Perrin"
<perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Crispin Cowan" <crispin@xxxxxxxxxx>;
<Casper.Dik@xxxxxxx>; "pdp (architect)" <pdp.gnucitizen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Lamont Granquist"
<lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Roland Kuhn" <rkuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: defining 0day


On 9/25/07, Brian Loe <knobdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No longer good enough.

We can get a press scare over a public vuln release, or a wake-up call.

I think we can do better as an industry.

Who, then, rewrites all of the reference material? And doesn't any new
definition simply become definition number 2 in Webster?

Is it really the definition that is lacking or is the use of the word
at issue? Seems to me, from the beginning of this debate, that its the
usage. Far easier to reform the "zero day process" (disclosure, etc.)
than to redefine the term "zero day". The term is owned by the public,
the process is owned by those who follow it, the industry.

I understand why this descriptivist approach is tempting over a
prescriptivist approach. But it's important, I think, to keep in mind
that the public uses the word "illegal" when they really mean
"unlawful" and uses the word "Schizophrenic" when they are talking
about multiple personality disorders. All technical fields have their
jargon, and the general public is simply not well educated enough
about the issues involved to arbitrate disputes over usage. Just as
the legal profession needs the word "illegal" with its proper meaning,
we also need our jargon to facilitate precise discussions about
security matters. The public can't always be the source of our
definitions.

Adrian


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/



Relevant Pages

  • Re: defining 0day
    ... Who, then, rewrites all of the reference material? ... Far easier to reform the "zero day process" ... jargon, and the general public is simply not well educated enough ... about the issues involved to arbitrate disputes over usage. ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day
    ... I think we can do better as an industry. ... Far easier to reform the "zero day process" ... jargon, and the general public is simply not well educated enough ... about the issues involved to arbitrate disputes over usage. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: defining 0day
    ... I think we can do better as an industry. ... Far easier to reform the "zero day process" ... jargon, and the general public is simply not well educated enough ... about the issues involved to arbitrate disputes over usage. ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • readpst
    ... Processing Folder "Gel\uffffschte Objekte" ... reference to second index block is zero. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Net::SFTP::Attributes
    ... when I ask a simple question on the correct usage of a module I would ... If $subref is specified, for each entry in the directory, $subref will ... be called and given a reference to a hash with three keys: ...
    (comp.lang.perl.modules)