bugtraq - 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]

Message-Id: <200709262325.l8QNPUli007709@mail-1.llnl.gov>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:25:30 -0700
From: "Zow" Terry Brugger <zow@...l.gov>
To: Charles Miller <cmiller@...tiche.org>
Cc: Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org>, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: defining 0day 

> 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>