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 16:46:33 -0400
From: Epic <epic@...k3r.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: defining 0day

At what point does it honestly matter?     The term will be used however it
is seen fit to use by the person using it.  Trying to redefine it how you
see fit or recast it into what you believe is just waisting time and
effort.   Why not do something useful?

This debate takes the same turn of events as the debate over the term
hacker.  In the end it matters not what you think and what you want to
believe.  The media and money will determine our precious defination.

You will then be forced to decide if you term your code 0day, based on that
defination.   Not if you determine the difination of 0day based on your
code.

On 9/25/07, Brian Loe <knobdy@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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