Re: defining 0day
- From: "Zow" Terry Brugger <zow@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:25:30 -0700
As a professional, I would be happy to see terms like '0day' banished
from the lexicon entirely. It's an essentially meaningless -- all
third-party exploits are zero-day to _somebody_ -- term of boast co-
opted from the warez scene, and we can do perfectly well without it.
I'd accept that. Can we agree on a term that means: "Right now you're
learning about a vulnerability for which there is a working exploit, and no
way to protect yourself short of impacting the availability of your systems
by unplugging them or disabling the affected service."?
I'd propose "unpatched vulnerability with known working exploit", but it's
kind of verbose, and I don't think some of the kids joining our ranks can
string that many complete words together anymore (too much texting).
Terry
#include <stddisclaim.h>
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: defining 0day
- From: Chad Perrin
- Re: defining 0day
- References:
- 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: pdp (architect)
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Gadi Evron
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Crispin Cowan
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Crispin Cowan
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Chad Perrin
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Lamont Granquist
- Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Roland Kuhn
- RE: 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- From: Thor (Hammer of God)
- defining 0day
- From: Gadi Evron
- Re: defining 0day
- From: Charles Miller
- 0day: PDF pwns Windows
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confirmed: Windows Explorer bad PNG file preview integer overflow handling
- Next by Date: Re: [waraxe-2007-SA#056] - Another Sql Injection in NukeSentinel 2.5.11
- Previous by thread: Re: defining 0day
- Next by thread: Re: defining 0day
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|