[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikW_e4+S3PLnoKgZ6KJu7ZGoA2180thPU+N0xDX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:31:34 -0400
From: Curt Purdy <infosysec@...il.com>
To: w0lfd33m@...il.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: 0-day "vulnerability"
OK, good points.
And since my mac dictionary widget doesn't have the term yet, I vote
for "0day dis" It has a nice ring to it ;)
Curt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:24 PM, <w0lfd33m@...il.com> wrote:
> Yep. Totally agree. Vulnerability exists in the system since it has been developed. It is just the matter when it has been disclosed or being exploited.
>
> I would suggest " 0 day disclosure" instead of "0 day vulnerability" :)
>
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Curt Purdy
> Sender: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"
> Sent: Oct 28, 2010 8:48 PM
>
> Sorry to rant, but I have seen this term used once too many times to
> sit idly by. And used today by what I once thought was a respectable
> infosec publication (that will remain nameless) while referring to the
> current Firefox vulnerability (that did, by the way, once have a 0-day
> sploit) Also, by definition, a 0-day no longer exists the moment it
> is announced ;)
>
> For once and for all: There is no such thing as a "zero-day
> vulnerability" (quoted), only a 0-day exploit...
>
> Curt Purdy CISSP, GSNA, GSEC, MCSE+I, CCNA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists