full-disclosure - Re: defining 0day

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:15:28 -0500
From: "Brian Loe" <knobdy@...il.com>
To: "Gadi Evron" <ge@...uxbox.org>
Cc: Chad Perrin <perrin@...theon.com>,
	Lamont Granquist <lamont@...iptkiddie.org>,
	"pdp \(architect\)" <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>, Casper.Dik@....com,
	Roland Kuhn <rkuhn@....physik.tu-muenchen.de>,
	"Thor \(Hammer of God\)" <thor@...merofgod.com>,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: defining 0day

On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org> 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.

Couldn't a formal process be developed that does the defining/labeling
of a particular disclosure?

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