Re: 0-day "vulnerability"

[Tyler Borland <tborland1 () gmail com>]

I think it's getting ridiculous.  Who cares about bureaucratical terms?  I
find more and more 'researchers' trying to just be auditors and categorize
exploits and try to follow some kind of universal naming convention for
exploits that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.  I'd rather see information
on exploits and interesting ways to use them than saying it's one type or
the other.

This 'scene' is not about politics and terminology for me.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:01 AM, <w0lfd33m () gmail com> wrote:

> LMAO!!
>
> Regards;
> w0lf
> www.maestro-sec.com
> -- sent from BlackBerry --
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
>        <cal.leeming () simplicitymedialtd co uk>
> Sender: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:23:57
> To: Josey Yelsef<hg_exposed () yahoo com>
> Cc: <full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/