Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: 0-day "vulnerability"
From: w0lfd33m () gmail com
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:51:57 +0000
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)" <thor () hammerofgod com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:35:33 To: w0lfd33m () gmail com<w0lfd33m () gmail com>; Curt Purdy<infosysec () gmail com>; full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk<full-disclosure-bounces () 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-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure- bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of w0lfd33m () gmail com Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:25 AM To: Curt Purdy; full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk; full- disclosure () 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-bounces () 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/
Current thread:
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability", (continued)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Curt Purdy (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Thor (Hammer of God) (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Curt Purdy (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Christian Sciberras (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Josey Yelsef (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" w0lfd33m (Oct 28)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Tyler Borland (Oct 29)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] (Oct 29)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" Marsh Ray (Oct 29)
- Re: 0-day "vulnerability" w0lfd33m (Oct 28)