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]

Message-ID: <608d9700709251423p4d89486bv2c99cf3c1c32c44f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:23:26 +0200
From: "Juergen Marester" <marester.juergen@...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

0day means vulnerability which was never used IRL, or use 0 time, thats why
we use term 0day.

But 0day doesnt mean it's an new type of vulnerability, otherwise the
appopriate term should be 0-vulnerability.

On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
> > For the record, the original term "O-Day" was coined by a dyslexic
> > security engineer who listened to too much Harry Belafonte while working
> > all night on a drink of rum.  It's true.  Really.
> >
> > t
>
> Okay. I think we exhausted the different views, and maybe we are now able
> to come to a conlusion on what we WANT 0day
> to mean.
>
> What do you, as professional, believe 0day should mean, regardless of
> previous definitions?
>
> Obviously, the term has become charged in the past couple of years with
> the targeted office vulnerabilities attacks,
> WMF, ANI, etc.
>
> We require a term to address these, just as much as we do "unpatched
> vulnerability" or "fully disclosed
> vulnerability".
>
> What other such descriptions should we consider before proceeding?
> non-disclosure?
>
>          Gadi.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/